Judging Criteria

The Submissions with Comments

Danger Mountain! by Jason Morningstar

Danger Mountain! emulates disaster films from the 1970s, which capitalized on a growing environmental malaise and blended it with age-old B-movie melodrama. The results were roundly terrible in retrospect, but terrible in a really fun way. Concept: 70s ecological disaster movies. Both unexpected and enticing.

70s ecological disaster movies. Both unexpected and enticing. Execution: This game reaches into the same cooperative boardgame-influenced GM-less design tradition as Fiasco and Geiger Counter. The game encourages loose player attachment to characters, gleefully describing terrible things happening and brutal deaths, but it is still grounded in the spark of humanity within stereotypical characters who can die from a single random die roll. Not a lot of pushing the envelope here, but it looks solid and fun.

This game reaches into the same cooperative boardgame-influenced GM-less design tradition as Fiasco and Geiger Counter. The game encourages loose player attachment to characters, gleefully describing terrible things happening and brutal deaths, but it is still grounded in the spark of humanity within stereotypical characters who can die from a single random die roll. Not a lot of pushing the envelope here, but it looks solid and fun. Completeness: Some of the procedures are less than 100% clear on first read, but would probably be clearer in play or with additional examples. The game actually answered a bunch of my early questions later in the text. When do you foreshadow disasters? (At the beginning of a scene or sometime during it.) Why bother rolling the disaster dice before you have 4? (You don’t need to, really.) Does everyone choose a second disaster secretly? (No, just the player who rolled the disaster.) The only couple things that I think would make it easier to get this to the table are reference cards listing the play procedures for different stages of the game. There are thankfully already character cards and disaster references included.

Some of the procedures are less than 100% clear on first read, but would probably be clearer in play or with additional examples. The game actually answered a bunch of my early questions later in the text. When do you foreshadow disasters? (At the beginning of a scene or sometime during it.) Why bother rolling the disaster dice before you have 4? (You don’t need to, really.) Does everyone choose a second disaster secretly? (No, just the player who rolled the disaster.) The only couple things that I think would make it easier to get this to the table are reference cards listing the play procedures for different stages of the game. There are thankfully already character cards and disaster references included. Cookery: Excellent use of the ingredients, overall. This game really took “city on the edge of the desert” and ran with it, rather than being overly restricted by it. The theme isn’t really there – the characters’ personal journey? journeying quickly away from raging wildfires? – but the game doesn’t miss it.

Excellent use of the ingredients, overall. This game really took “city on the edge of the desert” and ran with it, rather than being overly restricted by it. The theme isn’t really there – the characters’ personal journey? journeying quickly away from raging wildfires? – but the game doesn’t miss it. Conclusion: Finalist.

Paths of the Resolute by Jonathan Janssen

Paths of the Resolute is a game about finding personal identity amidst chaos. In this game, the players will play people who have lost their identity in a catastrophe, but struggle to create a new one in order to survive annihilation. Concept: A dreamlike desert city full of memory-less inhabitants is about to be swallowed by a mysterious force. The characters attempt to retrieve ancient documents from desert ruins and tattoo written verses across their bodies, inscriptions which they believe will protect them when the city is destroyed. A bit hard to explain to a potential audience, perhaps, but interesting.

A dreamlike desert city full of memory-less inhabitants is about to be swallowed by a mysterious force. The characters attempt to retrieve ancient documents from desert ruins and tattoo written verses across their bodies, inscriptions which they believe will protect them when the city is destroyed. A bit hard to explain to a potential audience, perhaps, but interesting. Execution: For all the complexity of the premise, the game itself is very simple, with minimal opportunities for character interaction. It is competitive, but mostly in a solo sense, with characters individually attempting to best challenges presented by the GM. In fact, aside from the option of trading discovered texts, it could easily be a 1-on-1 or even a solo game if there were fixed or randomly rolled obstacle difficulties for the various seasons. Honestly, the part I find least compelling of this – since I like searching for documents amidst desert ruins filled with deadly traps – is the moralistic part, where the texts are supposed to represent virtues that the characters aspire to. It seems tacked on and without much support in the rules. The different stages of play also seem variably important, with racing being less important than avoiding traps, but the entire enterprise also being undone if you can’t tattoo yourself successfully. Additionally, I would have loved to see some kind of more active endgame where the characters use their skills at raiding desert ruins or their secret knowledge gleaned from texts to attempt to save or escape the city, rather than it being more of a passive thing, where those who haven’t gathered up enough texts are simply destroyed along with the city. It’s not hard to imagine the city’s destruction in terms of traps, after all, and maybe if you bested one of those traps, you could activate one of your inscribed texts to do something., like preserving things from being destroyed or deciding what gets remembered.

For all the complexity of the premise, the game itself is very simple, with minimal opportunities for character interaction. It is competitive, but mostly in a solo sense, with characters individually attempting to best challenges presented by the GM. In fact, aside from the option of trading discovered texts, it could easily be a 1-on-1 or even a solo game if there were fixed or randomly rolled obstacle difficulties for the various seasons. Honestly, the part I find least compelling of this – since I like searching for documents amidst desert ruins filled with deadly traps – is the moralistic part, where the texts are supposed to represent virtues that the characters aspire to. It seems tacked on and without much support in the rules. The different stages of play also seem variably important, with racing being less important than avoiding traps, but the entire enterprise also being undone if you can’t tattoo yourself successfully. Additionally, I would have loved to see some kind of more active endgame where the characters use their skills at raiding desert ruins or their secret knowledge gleaned from texts to attempt to save or escape the city, rather than it being more of a passive thing, where those who haven’t gathered up enough texts are simply destroyed along with the city. It’s not hard to imagine the city’s destruction in terms of traps, after all, and maybe if you bested one of those traps, you could activate one of your inscribed texts to do something., like preserving things from being destroyed or deciding what gets remembered. Completeness: You can definitely pick this game up and play it, with the only exception being the relatively limited guidance for creating traps (pick a number between 4 and 8, with more lower numbers in the early stages and higher ones later on), when those are the core of the game. Also, what does failing a tattooing roll mean? Right now it’s not very clear.

You can definitely pick this game up and play it, with the only exception being the relatively limited guidance for creating traps (pick a number between 4 and 8, with more lower numbers in the early stages and higher ones later on), when those are the core of the game. Also, what does failing a tattooing roll mean? Right now it’s not very clear. Cookery: Used all four ingredients, certainly, and you can see something of the theme in there, journeying out to the desert ruins, but the game doesn’t rise very much above a relatively literal reading of the contest elements. Good, but not exceptional.

Used all four ingredients, certainly, and you can see something of the theme in there, journeying out to the desert ruins, but the game doesn’t rise very much above a relatively literal reading of the contest elements. Good, but not exceptional. Conclusion: A solid attempt and a fun premise, but I’m not sure there’s enough here for this to move on to the playoffs. I do think that, with a bit of work that perhaps fleshed it out a little, it could be the basis of a fun game where you explored desert ruins in an attempt to save knowledge from the city’s eventually destruction or even save the city itself. Right now, it’s a fun little roleplaying poem and I definitely think it deserves to be played, but the group would have to invest the rough outline here with more meaning and purpose.

The 7 Symbols of San Rio by Joe Jeskiewicz / Artexercise

The 7 Symbols of San Rio is an Oracle Style game in which the players are stuck in an abandonded city in the middle of a desert with some brand new tattoos and a note addressed to them. There is a push towards exploring the meaning of Sin and Virtue in this environment. Concept: Something like Robert Rodriguez directing Momento, but mechanically inspired by minimalist oracle-based designs like Ghost/Echo. A bunch of memory-less folks with strange tattoos awake in an abandoned desert town and try to figure out what this all means by showing off their vices and virtues. Seems like a better premise for a single-player game, but okay, I can dig it.

Something like Robert Rodriguez directing Momento, but mechanically inspired by minimalist oracle-based designs like Ghost/Echo. A bunch of memory-less folks with strange tattoos awake in an abandoned desert town and try to figure out what this all means by showing off their vices and virtues. Seems like a better premise for a single-player game, but okay, I can dig it. Execution: This game is very light on guidelines, so it’s easy to review all of it. The text says you have seven tattoos. You pick 3 and the other players pick 3. Where does the last one come from? There are mechanics for committing violence (cool), using special skills (how do you know what these are if your characters have no memory?), committing a sin or virtue (cool), and witnessing a sin or virtue (why do you roll for this, if it’s already determined by the fiction? what if we’ve described you standing right there?). All these mechanics are completely random, though there’s some weird strategies in number picking, like how if you pick numbers in the middle (4) you won’t get the extreme results. Presumably you can also draw a lot of narrative content from the tattoos and the GM just making stuff up, though there’s no GM guidance.

This game is very light on guidelines, so it’s easy to review all of it. The text says you have seven tattoos. You pick 3 and the other players pick 3. Where does the last one come from? There are mechanics for committing violence (cool), using special skills (how do you know what these are if your characters have no memory?), committing a sin or virtue (cool), and witnessing a sin or virtue (why do you roll for this, if it’s already determined by the fiction? what if we’ve described you standing right there?). All these mechanics are completely random, though there’s some weird strategies in number picking, like how if you pick numbers in the middle (4) you won’t get the extreme results. Presumably you can also draw a lot of narrative content from the tattoos and the GM just making stuff up, though there’s no GM guidance. Completeness: I really like minimalist designs, but I think this one goes too far in a number of senses. It’s hard to make minimalism work if you don’t know anything about the characters (no memories) because you can’t effectively draw on established material (“I’m a former mob enforcer on the run from my ex-boss”) or ask the players questions (“How do you usually do this?). Also, there’s no explanation of why some of the core mechanics, especially “witnessing,” are so critical to the game. Is it about spying on the evil deed of others, somehow? How do I make that happen? In general, I feel like I need a bit more guidance and direction to really know what to do with these interesting elements that I’ve been presented with, in order to make it into a game.

I really like minimalist designs, but I think this one goes too far in a number of senses. It’s hard to make minimalism work if you don’t know anything about the characters (no memories) because you can’t effectively draw on established material (“I’m a former mob enforcer on the run from my ex-boss”) or ask the players questions (“How do you usually do this?). Also, there’s no explanation of why some of the core mechanics, especially “witnessing,” are so critical to the game. Is it about spying on the evil deed of others, somehow? How do I make that happen? In general, I feel like I need a bit more guidance and direction to really know what to do with these interesting elements that I’ve been presented with, in order to make it into a game. Cookery: Totally legitimate, if relatively straightforward use of the ingredients. Not really seeing the theme that much, unless it’s supposed to be the journey of self-discovery through unraveling the tattoo mystery.

Totally legitimate, if relatively straightforward use of the ingredients. Not really seeing the theme that much, unless it’s supposed to be the journey of self-discovery through unraveling the tattoo mystery. Conclusion: A good attempt and something I’d be interested in reading play reports about, to see how different groups patched up the gaps in the text, but not solid enough to move on to the next round.

A Trick of the Light by Jeff R.

A Trick of the Light is a game of unreliable narration and intense reaction. Four survivors tell tales of their arduous journeys to the ruined city, and try to learn which of their fellows are real, spirit, or ghost; trustworthy or deadly misleading. Concept: A group of figures gathers in the center of a ruined desert city, telling each other the stories of how they arrived here. Which ones are human and which ones are merely ghosts and spirits? Compelling and cool.

A group of figures gathers in the center of a ruined desert city, telling each other the stories of how they arrived here. Which ones are human and which ones are merely ghosts and spirits? Compelling and cool. Execution: There are several interesting mechanics in this game, actually. It uses a deck of playing cards for all the core mechanics: an oracle-like method of choosing scene types (which is very cool), a way of questioning parts of other players’ narratives (also very cool), a way of getting rid of cards by matching your cards to things that happen in other players’ narratives (problematic, as in Once Upon a Time, but exacerbated by not having the needed fictional elements written on the cards), and discovering your true identity at the end (okay, but could be better). There’s also an endgame where the different players score points based on different conditions for each character type (human, ghost, spirits). So, a mixture of things here, some of which are really great, but some which work less well, I think.

There are several interesting mechanics in this game, actually. It uses a deck of playing cards for all the core mechanics: an oracle-like method of choosing scene types (which is very cool), a way of questioning parts of other players’ narratives (also very cool), a way of getting rid of cards by matching your cards to things that happen in other players’ narratives (problematic, as in Once Upon a Time, but exacerbated by not having the needed fictional elements written on the cards), and discovering your true identity at the end (okay, but could be better). There’s also an endgame where the different players score points based on different conditions for each character type (human, ghost, spirits). So, a mixture of things here, some of which are really great, but some which work less well, I think. Completeness: Because the entire game is so tight, I worry that the less good parts of the game are going to negatively impact the better parts and lead to a pretty mixed play experience overall, similar to my worries about Paths of the Resolute (02). There is a great premise here, but a few things are holding it back: edging under, the endgame (if the game is really about trust, shouldn’t it come up before the final moments?), and the lack of guidance for how to inject your characters into other players’ narratives. The text tells you to inject characters and each player has a number of characters to choose from, but the lack of structure here worries me.

Because the entire game is so tight, I worry that the less good parts of the game are going to negatively impact the better parts and lead to a pretty mixed play experience overall, similar to my worries about Paths of the Resolute (02). There is a great premise here, but a few things are holding it back: edging under, the endgame (if the game is really about trust, shouldn’t it come up before the final moments?), and the lack of guidance for how to inject your characters into other players’ narratives. The text tells you to inject characters and each player has a number of characters to choose from, but the lack of structure here worries me. Cookery: This feels like a fairly strong, if literal, use of the ingredients and theme. I’m not sure I see “edge” all that much, but that doesn’t bother me.

This feels like a fairly strong, if literal, use of the ingredients and theme. I’m not sure I see “edge” all that much, but that doesn’t bother me. Conclusion: This is close to being a really compelling game. In particular, the scene types and questions are very sharp and exciting. But it’s not quite ready for the playoffs.

Pub Crawl: Take the Edge Off by Samuel Briggson

Recently, you and your friends participated in a semi-annual event in your city: the pub crawl. There were good times, there were bad times and, as is often the case, now you’re all sitting around swapping stories from that day. Since alcohol was involved, you’re going to need some help from your friends to remember the details of what happened that day. Concept: Remembering the misadventures that occurred after a long night of drinking. Fabulous concept.

Remembering the misadventures that occurred after a long night of drinking. Fabulous concept. Execution: Wow, I was not expecting to like this game, but it is really solid and seems like it would feel very much like a pub crawl, complete with the highs, lows, and random shit that happens when you are out drinking with some friends late at night. The mixture of elation and depression is just about right, I think, and the Fudge dice really bring that across. The mechanics are really simple and straightforward, and I only have a couple of mechanical concerns. First, Fudge dice are really strange, mathematically, especially when you start altering how many of them you’re rolling. There is not a simple progression from 1dF to 2dF, 3dF, 4dF, etc. Each of those rolls very differently. Also, the fact that most Fudge dice rolls center on 0 makes me think that the net result of any bar visit is likely to be no change in BAC, at least for the player narrating the bar. However, on second thought, both of those may actually work with the tone of the game, both in the sense of random arbitrariness and in the way that most of the value changes will happen to other players during your turn.

Wow, I was not expecting to like this game, but it is really solid and seems like it would feel very much like a pub crawl, complete with the highs, lows, and random shit that happens when you are out drinking with some friends late at night. The mixture of elation and depression is just about right, I think, and the Fudge dice really bring that across. The mechanics are really simple and straightforward, and I only have a couple of mechanical concerns. First, Fudge dice are really strange, mathematically, especially when you start altering how many of them you’re rolling. There is not a simple progression from 1dF to 2dF, 3dF, 4dF, etc. Each of those rolls very differently. Also, the fact that most Fudge dice rolls center on 0 makes me think that the net result of any bar visit is likely to be no change in BAC, at least for the player narrating the bar. However, on second thought, both of those may actually work with the tone of the game, both in the sense of random arbitrariness and in the way that most of the value changes will happen to other players during your turn. Completeness: As I said before, this looks surprisingly solid, but the difficulties of predicting how Fudge dice will roll means that I’d want to see it playtested a fair bit to iron out whatever kinks exist, even if it is a fairly light bar game. As in Ribbon Drive, I think the light mechanics and fun tone may cause folks to underestimate how emotional and – I am not at all kidding – how compelling the game could be, especially as the characters sink down to their lows. Compared to the rest of the game, the endgame seems a bit weak, where you determine victory based on how close you came to your target BAC at the end of play. But, in reality, that “win condition” is a false one, I think; it drives play but does not actually determine true victory, which is something ultimately unmeasurable in a game like this. Perhaps, in the event of a really depressing night out, it could offer some comfort to the players, that somebody got something out of all this.

As I said before, this looks surprisingly solid, but the difficulties of predicting how Fudge dice will roll means that I’d want to see it playtested a fair bit to iron out whatever kinks exist, even if it is a fairly light bar game. As in Ribbon Drive, I think the light mechanics and fun tone may cause folks to underestimate how emotional and – I am not at all kidding – how compelling the game could be, especially as the characters sink down to their lows. Compared to the rest of the game, the endgame seems a bit weak, where you determine victory based on how close you came to your target BAC at the end of play. But, in reality, that “win condition” is a false one, I think; it drives play but does not actually determine true victory, which is something ultimately unmeasurable in a game like this. Perhaps, in the event of a really depressing night out, it could offer some comfort to the players, that somebody got something out of all this. Cookery: The theme is pretty well represented and I’ll give this game “city” and “edge,” but that feels pretty generous. This game is not really about the ingredients but is a better game because of it.

The theme is pretty well represented and I’ll give this game “city” and “edge,” but that feels pretty generous. This game is not really about the ingredients but is a better game because of it. Conclusion: Finalist. Can you believe it? Ha!

Nowhere Road by Jamie Fristrom

It’s a “make your own road movie” game. You’re on a road trip. You think you know what you want. But the other players know what you Really Need. Concept: A road trip game about self-discovery. Simple but strong.

A road trip game about self-discovery. Simple but strong. Execution: There’s a lot of really cool stuff going on here. Printing out an actual map for your journey is neat. The Real Need mechanic, which is the core of the game, is reverse Mountain Witch. Instead of hinting at your own Dark Fate, the other players hint at your Real Need and you have to try to fulfill it without knowing what it is exactly. But the “official guess” mechanic, where you try to guess your Need after each of your scenes, is less awesome than just making the characters achieve their Real Need in play and never really discussing them out loud until the end of the game. The different scene types and their different resolution mechanics are pretty cool, actually, and something I’d like to see more of in other games (differentiated resolution), but the conflict guidelines are somewhat weak in a stereotypical indie game “freeplay until a conflict happens” kind of way. That was a trend in design for a while (based on the popularity of Primetime Adventures, I think) and can lead to a lot of “Where is the conflict?” discussions at the table. This game mitigates that with the other scene types – which is a really smart work around – but doesn’t totally address the original problem. I also wonder if a game concept like this really needs randomly rolled conflict resolution, but I guess it depends on your play tastes and what sort of misadventures the characters get involved in. The endgame could also be a bit stronger, saying that, if you haven’t achieved your Real Need by the end of the game, you get your Surface Goal instead, but remain ultimately unfulfilled. That would be pretty hot, actually, and the rules suggest that without saying it explicitly.

There’s a lot of really cool stuff going on here. Printing out an actual map for your journey is neat. The Real Need mechanic, which is the core of the game, is reverse Mountain Witch. Instead of hinting at your own Dark Fate, the other players hint at your Real Need and you have to try to fulfill it without knowing what it is exactly. But the “official guess” mechanic, where you try to guess your Need after each of your scenes, is less awesome than just making the characters achieve their Real Need in play and never really discussing them out loud until the end of the game. The different scene types and their different resolution mechanics are pretty cool, actually, and something I’d like to see more of in other games (differentiated resolution), but the conflict guidelines are somewhat weak in a stereotypical indie game “freeplay until a conflict happens” kind of way. That was a trend in design for a while (based on the popularity of Primetime Adventures, I think) and can lead to a lot of “Where is the conflict?” discussions at the table. This game mitigates that with the other scene types – which is a really smart work around – but doesn’t totally address the original problem. I also wonder if a game concept like this really needs randomly rolled conflict resolution, but I guess it depends on your play tastes and what sort of misadventures the characters get involved in. The endgame could also be a bit stronger, saying that, if you haven’t achieved your Real Need by the end of the game, you get your Surface Goal instead, but remain ultimately unfulfilled. That would be pretty hot, actually, and the rules suggest that without saying it explicitly. Completeness: There’s no example of establishing Real Needs, just a copied misprint example from an earlier section of the rules. Also, I wonder you have to be traveling to the American Southwest? Why not a sheep herding competition in Wellington, NZ? Additionally, why is there not room for detours? In general, I think the actual map of the trip is underused, being such a strong idea. It would be better if it developed dynamically over the course of play, responding to choices the characters made, instead of being broken up into fixed sections from the beginning. The text also occasionally slips into a condescending voice – “This is what makes Road Trip different from other RPGs” – which is something to be careful about, since that kind of language is often both annoying and not especially accurate in claiming uniqueness.

There’s no example of establishing Real Needs, just a copied misprint example from an earlier section of the rules. Also, I wonder you have to be traveling to the American Southwest? Why not a sheep herding competition in Wellington, NZ? Additionally, why is there not room for detours? In general, I think the actual map of the trip is underused, being such a strong idea. It would be better if it developed dynamically over the course of play, responding to choices the characters made, instead of being broken up into fixed sections from the beginning. The text also occasionally slips into a condescending voice – “This is what makes Road Trip different from other RPGs” – which is something to be careful about, since that kind of language is often both annoying and not especially accurate in claiming uniqueness. Cookery: Great use of the theme. Artificially limiting the road trips to the Southwest is a weird way of getting “desert” in the game, since it limits the game rather that really making it about that region of the country. Also, calling them “Skin Goals” rather than “Surface Goals” or something is something of a stretch. The ingredients mostly seem to be holding the game back, rather than empowering it.

Great use of the theme. Artificially limiting the road trips to the Southwest is a weird way of getting “desert” in the game, since it limits the game rather that really making it about that region of the country. Also, calling them “Skin Goals” rather than “Surface Goals” or something is something of a stretch. The ingredients mostly seem to be holding the game back, rather than empowering it. Conclusion: This game is really close, has a lot of great ideas, and needs just a few significant tweaks for it to be really cooking with gas. But it’s not quite a Finalist as it currently stands.

Never to Die by James Mullen

It’s about a bunch of lads having a night out on the town, but it’ll be their last night out ever. It’s very British with lots of sex, drink & violence, ending in a tragedy. Concept: The last night on the town with your mates, because something’s about to change. It’s like Pub Crawl (05) meets Black Swan Green. Very British and very cool.

The last night on the town with your mates, because something’s about to change. It’s like Pub Crawl (05) meets Black Swan Green. Very British and very cool. Execution: Our second “night out”-based game is just as strong as the first, but for different reasons. This one de-emphasizes the drinking and places more emphasis on the trouble and social posturing, since it’s all about the lads and their social roles in the group and why everything is going to end after this night. It’s tragic not because it’s ultimately fleeting and a bit sad, really, but because it was so good, in its way, being together like this with your mates, but the fucked up sides of it are going to destroy all that goodness. There are still some potential issues with the game – the very colorful text is a bit too long and wordy, I’m concerned a bit that the GM resources and player stats may not shift like the game expects them too, and there probably aren’t quite sufficient guidelines for the GM to create trouble, just a lot of encouragement, mostly – but some playtesting will probably put things right in a jiffy. My initial reaction is definitely that 90 dice sounds way too many for the GM’s resource pool. The stats are really great and you can see a fair bit of Vincent Baker’s influence here (adding Mood+Action is like In a Wicked Age, there’s a mention of “Say Yes or Roll,” etc.), but it feels very much like its own game. The pre-generated characters are an interesting choice as well and I’m excited to see if they actually feel different in play, with Moods changing all over the place. The core dice mechanic is very clever as well, since the players ultimately want both themselves and the GM to be rolling as many dice as possible.

Our second “night out”-based game is just as strong as the first, but for different reasons. This one de-emphasizes the drinking and places more emphasis on the trouble and social posturing, since it’s all about the lads and their social roles in the group and why everything is going to end after this night. It’s tragic not because it’s ultimately fleeting and a bit sad, really, but because it was so good, in its way, being together like this with your mates, but the fucked up sides of it are going to destroy all that goodness. There are still some potential issues with the game – the very colorful text is a bit too long and wordy, I’m concerned a bit that the GM resources and player stats may not shift like the game expects them too, and there probably aren’t quite sufficient guidelines for the GM to create trouble, just a lot of encouragement, mostly – but some playtesting will probably put things right in a jiffy. My initial reaction is definitely that 90 dice sounds way too many for the GM’s resource pool. The stats are really great and you can see a fair bit of Vincent Baker’s influence here (adding Mood+Action is like In a Wicked Age, there’s a mention of “Say Yes or Roll,” etc.), but it feels very much like its own game. The pre-generated characters are an interesting choice as well and I’m excited to see if they actually feel different in play, with Moods changing all over the place. The core dice mechanic is very clever as well, since the players ultimately want both themselves and the GM to be rolling as many dice as possible. Completeness: I wonder a bit at trying this game with the bunch of Yanks I typically play with here in the States. Clearly part of the draw is the idea of getting into it with your mates, not just with your friends, y’know? And we could all throw on terrible accents and give it a go, but it would certainly be a different experience. Once it gets some more playtesting, I’d be interested in hearing how different groups handle this and if there could be suggestions written into the text about ways of dealing with cultural gaps.

I wonder a bit at trying this game with the bunch of Yanks I typically play with here in the States. Clearly part of the draw is the idea of getting into it with your mates, not just with your friends, y’know? And we could all throw on terrible accents and give it a go, but it would certainly be a different experience. Once it gets some more playtesting, I’d be interested in hearing how different groups handle this and if there could be suggestions written into the text about ways of dealing with cultural gaps. Cookery: Nice use of the theme, on a number of different levels. Having the GM be the City is a smart touch, as is using “skin” in the kind of pseudo-fascist way that means close brotherhood ties. And the group is certainly teetering on the edge. Very nice ingredient use, really, perhaps the best so far.

Nice use of the theme, on a number of different levels. Having the GM be the City is a smart touch, as is using “skin” in the kind of pseudo-fascist way that means close brotherhood ties. And the group is certainly teetering on the edge. Very nice ingredient use, really, perhaps the best so far. Conclusion: Finalist.

My God’s Bigger Than Your God by Joe Prince

A spiritual journey of faith and religious intolerance in the holy desert city. Can your deity be the one that flourishes? Concept: You play the leaders of different faiths battling for religious dominance of a great desert city. Nice!

You play the leaders of different faiths battling for religious dominance of a great desert city. Nice! Execution: This game is obviously rushed and I wish the author had time to really finish it properly. The game itself reminds me of Paul Tevis’ review of Trubune and other board games where you invest turns in different strategies in an attempt to out-maneuver your opponents. The very cool strategies add a more complex mechanical dimension to what is basically some very light narration of the “describe a scene in which X happens” variety. To give the narrative aspects of the game more teeth, I’d love to see more guidelines for actually playing out the events of the game, inspired by Microscope or other hybrid storytelling-RPG games, or just some other way of making the game more than just a competitive board game. Not that there’s anything wrong with board games! What is here seems like it would work pretty well, though. All the strategies are really gripping (“warrior messiah!”) and would be fun to narrate.

This game is obviously rushed and I wish the author had time to really finish it properly. The game itself reminds me of Paul Tevis’ review of Trubune and other board games where you invest turns in different strategies in an attempt to out-maneuver your opponents. The very cool strategies add a more complex mechanical dimension to what is basically some very light narration of the “describe a scene in which X happens” variety. To give the narrative aspects of the game more teeth, I’d love to see more guidelines for actually playing out the events of the game, inspired by Microscope or other hybrid storytelling-RPG games, or just some other way of making the game more than just a competitive board game. Not that there’s anything wrong with board games! What is here seems like it would work pretty well, though. All the strategies are really gripping (“warrior messiah!”) and would be fun to narrate. Completeness: The game is basically complete, aside from one strategy that the author didn’t have time to finish. A booklet doesn’t seem like the right form factor for the game, however, since it would be easier to choose between stratagems for this turn if they were on cards. I also wonder if it would be possible for all the players to choose their stratagems at the same time, perhaps choosing them in order of their number of followers, with the most popular religion getting preference, and have them all happen effectively at once.

The game is basically complete, aside from one strategy that the author didn’t have time to finish. A booklet doesn’t seem like the right form factor for the game, however, since it would be easier to choose between stratagems for this turn if they were on cards. I also wonder if it would be possible for all the players to choose their stratagems at the same time, perhaps choosing them in order of their number of followers, with the most popular religion getting preference, and have them all happen effectively at once. Cookery: This game really isn’t about the theme or ingredients, but who cares? Not me.

This game really isn’t about the theme or ingredients, but who cares? Not me. Conclusion: Finish this game, Joe! I want to play it. But it’s not a Finalist.

Long Shot by Nick Wedig

You’re a colonist four light years away from civilization. Now Earth has gone silent: they’re possibly dead but they’re definitely not sending any help. How will you survive on this blasted desert planet? Concept: A group of settlers tries to survive on a dusty alien world after they find out no more supply ships are coming and the sheriff has been murdered. Mechanically, it’s Dogs in the Vineyard + Danger Patrol, but without a GM. Thematically, it’s Firefly + Polaris. Very cool and ambitious.

A group of settlers tries to survive on a dusty alien world after they find out no more supply ships are coming and the sheriff has been murdered. Mechanically, it’s Dogs in the Vineyard + Danger Patrol, but without a GM. Thematically, it’s Firefly + Polaris. Very cool and ambitious. Execution: This game tries to take on a lot of different tasks and mostly succeeds, to its credit. It’s a GM-less game with strong player affiliation with a single protagonist; there’s a mystery that gets unraveled during play (“who killed the sheriff?”); there’s the growing problem of running short on supplies; there are various player-described conditions that characters can get; and the endgame means that eventually the characters will turn on the NPCs and each other, ending with everybody dead. That’s a lot to get done, but this game does it, despite my initial skepticism. Mechanically it seems pretty robust, but playtesting is of course needed to see if it’ll actually stand up and if the included characters are as potent in play as they appear on paper. You combine two half-sheets to make a character but, unlike in Danger Patrol, this actually gives you a name, character background, people you hate, and the like in addition to mechanical elements. So the fictional elements of the game are strongly framed from the beginning, which helps, I think, since the mechanical elements often rely on judgment calls and a good sense of pacing from the players.

This game tries to take on a lot of different tasks and mostly succeeds, to its credit. It’s a GM-less game with strong player affiliation with a single protagonist; there’s a mystery that gets unraveled during play (“who killed the sheriff?”); there’s the growing problem of running short on supplies; there are various player-described conditions that characters can get; and the endgame means that eventually the characters will turn on the NPCs and each other, ending with everybody dead. That’s a lot to get done, but this game does it, despite my initial skepticism. Mechanically it seems pretty robust, but playtesting is of course needed to see if it’ll actually stand up and if the included characters are as potent in play as they appear on paper. You combine two half-sheets to make a character but, unlike in Danger Patrol, this actually gives you a name, character background, people you hate, and the like in addition to mechanical elements. So the fictional elements of the game are strongly framed from the beginning, which helps, I think, since the mechanical elements often rely on judgment calls and a good sense of pacing from the players. Completeness: There are some things that might be worth fixing before or during playtesting. For example there are only vague guidelines for determining when a conflict occurs – “when character want different things” is not quite enough; they want different things from the get-go, right? – and having players spend their own characters’ dice to create terrain obstacles or other threats is okay but perhaps not the best, though being able to draw from the common pool mostly mitigates this. I also suspect that the mechanical result of conditions need to be rethought, since rarely will having a -1 for your next 20 rolls will not often make for really provocative story content. It’s probably better if you have to take at least -1 for every condition you have active, but you can take bigger penalties (and in some cases may have to, like if the other players invoke your weakness) to make your conditions go away faster. Perhaps players can invoke a condition directly to make you take half its current value in penalties, something like that.

There are some things that might be worth fixing before or during playtesting. For example there are only vague guidelines for determining when a conflict occurs – “when character want different things” is not quite enough; they want different things from the get-go, right? – and having players spend their own characters’ dice to create terrain obstacles or other threats is okay but perhaps not the best, though being able to draw from the common pool mostly mitigates this. I also suspect that the mechanical result of conditions need to be rethought, since rarely will having a -1 for your next 20 rolls will not often make for really provocative story content. It’s probably better if you have to take at least -1 for every condition you have active, but you can take bigger penalties (and in some cases may have to, like if the other players invoke your weakness) to make your conditions go away faster. Perhaps players can invoke a condition directly to make you take half its current value in penalties, something like that. Cookery: Great use of the theme and ingredients, though “skin and bones” was more of a stretch than this game really needed, since all they do is determine starting die pools and the fictional meanings – high-tech miracle cloth and raygun ammo cartridges – don’t seem to matter much, since you can roll your dice to shove people or browbeat them as well as shoot or heal them.

Great use of the theme and ingredients, though “skin and bones” was more of a stretch than this game really needed, since all they do is determine starting die pools and the fictional meanings – high-tech miracle cloth and raygun ammo cartridges – don’t seem to matter much, since you can roll your dice to shove people or browbeat them as well as shoot or heal them. Conclusion: Finalist.

Brachininae by Alex Isabelle / il mietitore

Robots have conquered the Earth. Now humans live hidden under the ground in the subterranean city of Skin. A group of heroes is taking part in a mission where they are all probably gonna die. We want to find out why are they doing this. Concept: WWII-era pilots go on a bombing run to destroy the robots from the Matrix movies. Along the way you have flashbacks that help explain why you are here and determine how the endgame plays out, whether you succeed on your mission. A bit weird, but okay.

WWII-era pilots go on a bombing run to destroy the robots from the Matrix movies. Along the way you have flashbacks that help explain why you are here and determine how the endgame plays out, whether you succeed on your mission. A bit weird, but okay. Execution: This game has some cool ideas but I don’t think they ever really gel together. The scenes are framed by asking questions about things the characters care about and are resolved based on a second question, which is a very smart structure. However, the resolution mechanics, which always involve threats of violence between characters, are a bit limiting, considering all the different kinds of situations that could potentially take place in flashbacks. Additionally, the escalation system, reminiscent of Dogs in the Vineyard, involves invoking character traits, which would normally be okay, but in a very short one-shot game like this, character traits are pretty meaningless, since they’ll only come up once and don’t have a lot of narrative or emotional significance to the players when they do appear, unless the game has gone out of its way to supercharge them somehow, as this game does by the way it structures the scene framing questions. Finally, while I like tying the stages of the journey to the escalation system, having the journey stages be both an abstract map, stats, escalation stages, and the endgame mechanic puts too much weight on them, I think, more than they can support.

This game has some cool ideas but I don’t think they ever really gel together. The scenes are framed by asking questions about things the characters care about and are resolved based on a second question, which is a very smart structure. However, the resolution mechanics, which always involve threats of violence between characters, are a bit limiting, considering all the different kinds of situations that could potentially take place in flashbacks. Additionally, the escalation system, reminiscent of Dogs in the Vineyard, involves invoking character traits, which would normally be okay, but in a very short one-shot game like this, character traits are pretty meaningless, since they’ll only come up once and don’t have a lot of narrative or emotional significance to the players when they do appear, unless the game has gone out of its way to supercharge them somehow, as this game does by the way it structures the scene framing questions. Finally, while I like tying the stages of the journey to the escalation system, having the journey stages be both an abstract map, stats, escalation stages, and the endgame mechanic puts too much weight on them, I think, more than they can support. Completeness: This game is definitely playable, as is, since there are no major missing pieces. But I suspect that play would not be especially rich or fulfilling, giving the way the rules only support certain kinds of conflict and telegraph a fairly pessimistic ending without giving the characters many tools or opportunities to change their fate or at least determine what it means or what results from it.

This game is definitely playable, as is, since there are no major missing pieces. But I suspect that play would not be especially rich or fulfilling, giving the way the rules only support certain kinds of conflict and telegraph a fairly pessimistic ending without giving the characters many tools or opportunities to change their fate or at least determine what it means or what results from it. Cookery: Aside from journey, the ingredients here are mostly a stretch, which is fine, but I can’t help but think that maybe making the ingredients more central would give this game a stronger sense of purpose.

Aside from journey, the ingredients here are mostly a stretch, which is fine, but I can’t help but think that maybe making the ingredients more central would give this game a stronger sense of purpose. Conclusion: This one needs a fair bit of work to either discover its real focus or better communicate what the game is actually about and how the rules help the players achieve that. While the author seems mainly worried about language issues, I don’t think that was a significant issue here, actually.

Walkers in The Witchery Way by Alla Hoffman

My game is called “Walkers in The Witchery Way” and it centers around a city carved into a desert cliff where the nearly-human Skinwalkers live. It is uncertain what they want or where they come from, but since you are one, I suppose you know. Concept: You play a bunch of skin-wearing shape-changers in a desert city, either trying to champion its cause or destroy it. Very cool.

You play a bunch of skin-wearing shape-changers in a desert city, either trying to champion its cause or destroy it. Very cool. Execution: Reading this text, it seems much more like a description of the game rather than the game itself. For example, the game says that Skinwalkers are X, Y, Z, or typically do X, Y, Z or that the GM can do X, Y, Z, but it doesn’t really provide rules or guidelines for doing those things. When characters heal, they heal one sliver per day but take a whole month if they are completely injured. Is a day or month a meaningful unit of game time? What do injured characters do in the meantime? Skinwalkers can be killed by someone speaking their true names, but there are no guidelines for determining another character’s true name or preventing someone from discovering your own name. If you roll a 2 on Magic, you’ve put your skin on improperly. Can you try to take a skin off and put it on again? Wearing a skin longer than you need to has all these cool effects but no reasons or mechanics are given that show why you would you wear a skin that long. These kinds of issues go on and on, especially in the sections on what the GM does and for the other stats aside from Magic. The game says that you can do all these cool things, but then the rules of the game only sometimes touch on those cool things (like putting on skins and cursing people, the only things covered well). Additionally, all of the die rolls are basically the same, no matter the fictional circumstances. That’s fine, but it makes these descriptions of cool situations (wearing a skin too long, etc.) even more meaningless, if they have no mechanical significance.

Reading this text, it seems much more like a description of the game rather than the game itself. For example, the game says that Skinwalkers are X, Y, Z, or typically do X, Y, Z or that the GM can do X, Y, Z, but it doesn’t really provide rules or guidelines for doing those things. When characters heal, they heal one sliver per day but take a whole month if they are completely injured. Is a day or month a meaningful unit of game time? What do injured characters do in the meantime? Skinwalkers can be killed by someone speaking their true names, but there are no guidelines for determining another character’s true name or preventing someone from discovering your own name. If you roll a 2 on Magic, you’ve put your skin on improperly. Can you try to take a skin off and put it on again? Wearing a skin longer than you need to has all these cool effects but no reasons or mechanics are given that show why you would you wear a skin that long. These kinds of issues go on and on, especially in the sections on what the GM does and for the other stats aside from Magic. The game says that you can do all these cool things, but then the rules of the game only sometimes touch on those cool things (like putting on skins and cursing people, the only things covered well). Additionally, all of the die rolls are basically the same, no matter the fictional circumstances. That’s fine, but it makes these descriptions of cool situations (wearing a skin too long, etc.) even more meaningless, if they have no mechanical significance. Completeness: This game is missing a great deal. It’s not too short, necessarily, but what it does provide is not enough to really play the concept that the game presents you with. Say we want to play one of the core campaign concepts it suggests, infiltrating the city and destroying it. How do we start? What obstacles should the GM create? What kinds of characters should we make? What will the characters need to do to destroy the city? The players basically have to come up with all this by themselves and the mechanics do not really support city destruction, so the GM will have to figure out how to measure their progress in that respect and decide when the city has been destroyed, I guess.

This game is missing a great deal. It’s not too short, necessarily, but what it does provide is not enough to really play the concept that the game presents you with. Say we want to play one of the core campaign concepts it suggests, infiltrating the city and destroying it. How do we start? What obstacles should the GM create? What kinds of characters should we make? What will the characters need to do to destroy the city? The players basically have to come up with all this by themselves and the mechanics do not really support city destruction, so the GM will have to figure out how to measure their progress in that respect and decide when the city has been destroyed, I guess. Cookery: The ingredients are all here and the theme is present in the different campaign types, all of which involve a journey.

The ingredients are all here and the theme is present in the different campaign types, all of which involve a journey. Conclusion: Conceptually, this game doesn’t have any issues, but it needs to figure out how to effectively invite would-be players into this setting and empower them to explore it. Right now, the setting/concept and the rules are only barely hanging onto each other, so there’s not much reason you would use these rules rather than, say, using this awesome concept as the basis for a D&D campaign or some other game.

Memoir by Declan Feeney

Memoir is a game about our lives, choices, relationships and legacies. How will we be remembered when we’re gone? Concept: Play out the lives of real, everyday people, from childhood to death, and determine the legacy they leave behind. Super ambitious.

Play out the lives of real, everyday people, from childhood to death, and determine the legacy they leave behind. Super ambitious. Execution: This is a classic “roll to overcome your grief” indie game, where you use fairly traditional roleplaying techniques in an attempt to describe realistic characters facing everyday problems. The various life stages have different rules while still drawing on the same character traits and resources, which is a cool concept. I also really like the desert stage that you fall into if your character loses touch with other people. But there are also some choices that feel like mismatches. For example, why have relatively traditional stats (Mind, Body, Soul, Wealth) in a biographical game about real people? Why focus on conflict resolution and antagonism in a game about life’s most important moments (which may not involve conflicts)? There are some ways to mitigate this by actively encouraging the type of “I want to prove I’m not a coward” conflicts that punctuate Dogs in the Vineyard (perhaps still the best game about growing up), but there’s perhaps not enough of that kind of guidance here. Overall, though, my biggest concern is that the huge range of stories you could tell with such a game – from the bio of a nameless homeless woman to Abraham Lincoln to Conan – makes the game ultimately an enigma: it’s very hard to know what you’re going to get from it, especially with each player potentially telling a very different kind of story. It also seems to require immense creative leverage on the part of the players to keep the narrative content compelling, perhaps more than any other game I’ve ever seen (though Microscope may be similar). You have to invent, without much support, an entire set of people, their family members, and their entire lives. Sure, you do it in stages, which helps, but I would definitely appreciate places where I could choose from a set of options or have the game push me down particular paths, rather than have it be so completely open ended. It’s as if the huge ambitions of the game aren’t quite adequately supported with practical guidelines to make things more accessible.

This is a classic “roll to overcome your grief” indie game, where you use fairly traditional roleplaying techniques in an attempt to describe realistic characters facing everyday problems. The various life stages have different rules while still drawing on the same character traits and resources, which is a cool concept. I also really like the desert stage that you fall into if your character loses touch with other people. But there are also some choices that feel like mismatches. For example, why have relatively traditional stats (Mind, Body, Soul, Wealth) in a biographical game about real people? Why focus on conflict resolution and antagonism in a game about life’s most important moments (which may not involve conflicts)? There are some ways to mitigate this by actively encouraging the type of “I want to prove I’m not a coward” conflicts that punctuate Dogs in the Vineyard (perhaps still the best game about growing up), but there’s perhaps not enough of that kind of guidance here. Overall, though, my biggest concern is that the huge range of stories you could tell with such a game – from the bio of a nameless homeless woman to Abraham Lincoln to Conan – makes the game ultimately an enigma: it’s very hard to know what you’re going to get from it, especially with each player potentially telling a very different kind of story. It also seems to require immense creative leverage on the part of the players to keep the narrative content compelling, perhaps more than any other game I’ve ever seen (though Microscope may be similar). You have to invent, without much support, an entire set of people, their family members, and their entire lives. Sure, you do it in stages, which helps, but I would definitely appreciate places where I could choose from a set of options or have the game push me down particular paths, rather than have it be so completely open ended. It’s as if the huge ambitions of the game aren’t quite adequately supported with practical guidelines to make things more accessible. Completeness: This game is thorough in the extreme. But after reading the whole thing, I find that I am still intimidated and uncertain about what it is asking me to do, rather than empowered by the text to attempt this monumental challenge.

This game is thorough in the extreme. But after reading the whole thing, I find that I am still intimidated and uncertain about what it is asking me to do, rather than empowered by the text to attempt this monumental challenge. Cookery: I could talk about the ingredients here, but it’s obvious that – since the game is dedicated to the author’s unborn child – that he brought the most important ingredient at all: passion. What else could I ask for?

I could talk about the ingredients here, but it’s obvious that – since the game is dedicated to the author’s unborn child – that he brought the most important ingredient at all: passion. What else could I ask for? Conclusion: This is the hardest call I’ve had to make so far. There is a lot of really great stuff here and clearly the author put a ton of heart and effort into this game, but I still don’t feel like I’m ready to bring it to my table, that the game has given me what I need in order to really create the type of experience it describes. I would love to play it if someone else was organizing a game, though. Maybe it’s a good candidate for “Best Game Jonathan Overlooked.”

World Riddle (with cards) by Stuart Chaplin

World Riddle is a Journey towards Enlightenment. It is a game of two worlds and of questions. World Riddle is a koan to which each play group must find their own answer. World Riddle is about the search for the City of the Real within the Desert of the Mundane. Concept: A group of sojourners travel along the edge, between the City (enlightenment) and the Desert (spiritual wasteland). What choices do they make and where do they end up? Surreal and potentially very cool.

A group of sojourners travel along the edge, between the City (enlightenment) and the Desert (spiritual wasteland). What choices do they make and where do they end up? Surreal and potentially very cool. Execution: As some of my previous Game Chef attempts indicate (especially When The Forms Exhaust Their Variety from 2006), I’m a big fan of surrealism and transcendentalism in roleplaying. This game is clearly a Polaris descendent, with four players taking on rotating responsibilities and the use of ritual phrases to adjust the developing narrative. There are very cool question cards that are drawn by the protagonist player, who frames a scene around them and uses it to examine the question (“What secrets are birthed beneath this one’s smile?”). The other players then help play out the scene, taking on the roles of the World, Attachment, and Enlightenment, and ultimately you decide whether to give the card to the Enlightenment, moving towards it, or the Attachment, holding on to things here. There are also random elements called forks (“Something burns!”) that can be added to later scenes. There’s an endgame that determines your character’s final outcome based on how many cards you received from the players on either side, when you were playing the Attachment and Enlightenment. This is all pretty neat.

As some of my previous Game Chef attempts indicate (especially When The Forms Exhaust Their Variety from 2006), I’m a big fan of surrealism and transcendentalism in roleplaying. This game is clearly a Polaris descendent, with four players taking on rotating responsibilities and the use of ritual phrases to adjust the developing narrative. There are very cool question cards that are drawn by the protagonist player, who frames a scene around them and uses it to examine the question (“What secrets are birthed beneath this one’s smile?”). The other players then help play out the scene, taking on the roles of the World, Attachment, and Enlightenment, and ultimately you decide whether to give the card to the Enlightenment, moving towards it, or the Attachment, holding on to things here. There are also random elements called forks (“Something burns!”) that can be added to later scenes. There’s an endgame that determines your character’s final outcome based on how many cards you received from the players on either side, when you were playing the Attachment and Enlightenment. This is all pretty neat. Completeness: But the game is missing a few key things. On the first page the text says to talk with the other players and figure out who your characters are and what sort of journey this is. That’s it: you just make it up with no guidance whatsoever. For a game this surreal, I’m not sure that’s going to cut it. The players need to know how to make characters that fit with what this game is trying to do. Additionally, I wonder about deciding the characters ultimate fate based on the choices made by other characters based on how the players portrayed abstract forces. That is completely arbitrary and unconnected to the actual characters choices, which adds to the randomness but doesn’t really feel appropriate if the game is really about choice. Finally, it’s great that characters get to choose which spiritual direction a given scene pulls them in, without any randomness or mechanical resolution, but the simplicity of this also leaves the effect of that choice on the endgame completely transparent, since the cards are all lying on the table. As a player, I know what the different choice options will mean for the players on either side of me when the endgame comes and that serves as a distraction from the workings of the scene itself and freely making that choice. I also feel like, for a game about spiritual salvation, the choice itself is pretty toothless, right? What’s the difference between choosing between them? Is choosing Enlightenment really just that easy?

But the game is missing a few key things. On the first page the text says to talk with the other players and figure out who your characters are and what sort of journey this is. That’s it: you just make it up with no guidance whatsoever. For a game this surreal, I’m not sure that’s going to cut it. The players need to know how to make characters that fit with what this game is trying to do. Additionally, I wonder about deciding the characters ultimate fate based on the choices made by other characters based on how the players portrayed abstract forces. That is completely arbitrary and unconnected to the actual characters choices, which adds to the randomness but doesn’t really feel appropriate if the game is really about choice. Finally, it’s great that characters get to choose which spiritual direction a given scene pulls them in, without any randomness or mechanical resolution, but the simplicity of this also leaves the effect of that choice on the endgame completely transparent, since the cards are all lying on the table. As a player, I know what the different choice options will mean for the players on either side of me when the endgame comes and that serves as a distraction from the workings of the scene itself and freely making that choice. I also feel like, for a game about spiritual salvation, the choice itself is pretty toothless, right? What’s the difference between choosing between them? Is choosing Enlightenment really just that easy? Cookery: Pretty sweet use of the theme and the ingredients. Very creative.

Pretty sweet use of the theme and the ingredients. Very creative. Conclusion: I really like the premise and overall structure, but it needs more guidance on the narrative aspects, especially creating characters and deciding the overall feel of the journey, and for the mechanics to better support meaningful decisions, even if the overall game still feels very surreal (and that surreal aspect is executed pretty well).

The Hand of Gulliver the Man-Mountain by Mike Pohjola

An RPG where Lilliputians explore the hand of Gulliver who just washed ashore. Your finger represents your Lilliputian character, and the GM’s hand is the Hand of Gulliver the Man-Mountain. (The world’s first manual-digital-tactile roleplaying game.) Concept: In the proud tradition of Rocky & Bullwinkle and Puppetland, players create puppets out of their own fingers and explore the back of the Gamemaster’s hand as Lilliputians exploring Gulliver’s tied-down body. Brilliant.

In the proud tradition of Rocky & Bullwinkle and Puppetland, players create puppets out of their own fingers and explore the back of the Gamemaster’s hand as Lilliputians exploring Gulliver’s tied-down body. Brilliant. Execution: This game is great, though the players really shouldn’t read the GM guidelines or – even better – there should be suggestions for how the GM can alter them or come up with new ways to play Gulliver. As solid and fun as it looks, I have three concerns going into playtesting: falling off, dying, and character traits. As the rules currently stand, the rules for jumping (which are great) are basically required to move to the cool parts of the hand, such as the fingers, but it’s super easy to fall off the hand entirely, because you fall off if you overshoot your target, even if you still land on your hand. Maybe this will still work in practice, but it stood out to me. There’s going to be a lot of “wasted” turns climbing back onto the hand. Also, Lilliputians can be instantly murdered by their fellows if they lose a game of “finger war,” which seems a bit too easy (and they can additionally die in a random fashion due to the movements of the man-mountain). This could be fine in practice if the game isn’t intended to last very long, like 20 minutes or so, and it’s unclear how long this extended joke can be played before it’s better to leave it be. Finally, I was disappointed that there weren’t any real guidelines for debates or other social/political aspects since so many of the Lilliputians traits have to do with their political parties and religious beliefs. Are those just meant to be reasons to murder other Lilliputians? Because it’s hard to see what else you do with that, mechanically, though clearly arguing about them in Mickey Mouse voices could be very entertaining.

This game is great, though the players really shouldn’t read the GM guidelines or – even better – there should be suggestions for how the GM can alter them or come up with new ways to play Gulliver. As solid and fun as it looks, I have three concerns going into playtesting: falling off, dying, and character traits. As the rules currently stand, the rules for jumping (which are great) are basically required to move to the cool parts of the hand, such as the fingers, but it’s super easy to fall off the hand entirely, because you fall off if you overshoot your target, even if you still land on your hand. Maybe this will still work in practice, but it stood out to me. There’s going to be a lot of “wasted” turns climbing back onto the hand. Also, Lilliputians can be instantly murdered by their fellows if they lose a game of “finger war,” which seems a bit too easy (and they can additionally die in a random fashion due to the movements of the man-mountain). This could be fine in practice if the game isn’t intended to last very long, like 20 minutes or so, and it’s unclear how long this extended joke can be played before it’s better to leave it be. Finally, I was disappointed that there weren’t any real guidelines for debates or other social/political aspects since so many of the Lilliputians traits have to do with their political parties and religious beliefs. Are those just meant to be reasons to murder other Lilliputians? Because it’s hard to see what else you do with that, mechanically, though clearly arguing about them in Mickey Mouse voices could be very entertaining. Completeness: It seems pretty easy to pick up this game and play it. Aside from social stuff, which could be freeformed, there weren’t any big gaps or places where I felt confused about how to run the game. That said, with some additional work, this game could go from being a funny little idea into something that really offers a complete game experience. Imagine, for example, if one player volunteers to play the man-mountain and lies face-down on the floor. Then, the other players could play across the entire back of his body (with perhaps a “not below the waist” rule), starting with the hand. And there could be guidelines for what happens if Gulliver convulses from being tickled by the fingers or bellows with rage or whatnot. And with additional terrain to be explored (mining his teeth for gold, for example), the game suddenly becomes more interesting and there’s more room for political drama to play out, with one faction seizing control of the head or the peaks of the shoulders.

It seems pretty easy to pick up this game and play it. Aside from social stuff, which could be freeformed, there weren’t any big gaps or places where I felt confused about how to run the game. That said, with some additional work, this game could go from being a funny little idea into something that really offers a complete game experience. Imagine, for example, if one player volunteers to play the man-mountain and lies face-down on the floor. Then, the other players could play across the entire back of his body (with perhaps a “not below the waist” rule), starting with the hand. And there could be guidelines for what happens if Gulliver convulses from being tickled by the fingers or bellows with rage or whatnot. And with additional terrain to be explored (mining his teeth for gold, for example), the game suddenly becomes more interesting and there’s more room for political drama to play out, with one faction seizing control of the head or the peaks of the shoulders. Cookery: The theme is well-used here, as is Skin and Desert and Edge and even City in the sense of Lilliput itself. Very, very well done.

The theme is well-used here, as is Skin and Desert and Edge and even City in the sense of Lilliput itself. Very, very well done. Conclusion: Despite a few concerns, I think this is still a Finalist and, as I said above, could develop into a more significant game like Puppetland or Paranoia going forward, while still keeping the humorous aspects.

Chronicles of Skin by Sebastian Hickey

Pictures on leather record the history of an ancient civil war. Tell the stories of the people of that war and write your history through the eyes of the victors. Chronicles of Skin is a 60 minute game of ancient atrocity and propaganda. Concept: Players play out a limited number of scenes describing a war between two different groups of people, recording the results with pictographs drawn on a sheet of paper. The endgame determines which group ultimately triumphs. Solid.

Players play out a limited number of scenes describing a war between two different groups of people, recording the results with pictographs drawn on a sheet of paper. The endgame determines which group ultimately triumphs. Solid. Execution: There are a number of really cool ideas here. The pictographs and skin are terrific, though I think they could have been incorporated more centrally into the mechanics, instead of serving as merely a record of play. For example, they could have mapped out the boundaries (physical or whatever) of the conflict, which the players would then contest or explore. Or resolution could have involved trading pictographs back and forth in a way that was more interactive rather that just accumulative, with elements combining to create new pictographs. Overall, I was surprised and pleased by how much I liked the scene framing guidelines, though I would suggest getting rid of the term “PC,” which has some unnecessary baggage. In a Wicked Age could offer some inspiration, I think, on how to handle reoccurring characters in a game without strict PCs. Plus, the rule about not killing major characters even if they lose a battle seems a bit too nice, perhaps, in a game about war. While I think the game could be made much stronger (see below) it mostly works as is due to the very limited scope. Players only have a few scenes to record the major events of the war, and the rules offer enough to get that far, but maybe not much further, at least right now.

There are a number of really cool ideas here. The pictographs and skin are terrific, though I think they could have been incorporated more centrally into the mechanics, instead of serving as merely a record of play. For example, they could have mapped out the boundaries (physical or whatever) of the conflict, which the players would then contest or explore. Or resolution could have involved trading pictographs back and forth in a way that was more interactive rather that just accumulative, with elements combining to create new pictographs. Overall, I was surprised and pleased by how much I liked the scene framing guidelines, though I would suggest getting rid of the term “PC,” which has some unnecessary baggage. In a Wicked Age could offer some inspiration, I think, on how to handle reoccurring characters in a game without strict PCs. Plus, the rule about not killing major characters even if they lose a battle seems a bit too nice, perhaps, in a game about war. While I think the game could be made much stronger (see below) it mostly works as is due to the very limited scope. Players only have a few scenes to record the major events of the war, and the rules offer enough to get that far, but maybe not much further, at least right now. Completeness: Overall, this game is pretty solid. But I can’t help but feel that the game would be better if it provided guidelines for the players to invent names and important locations for the different parties involved in the war, rather than starting with the names Ilho, Croen, and the city of Seraphin. I’m not sure what those are really adding to the game. For example, the biggest question in the game, one that is not at all addressed by the rules or the text, is where these two “cultures” in this war came from, why they share the city of Seraphin, why the last king died, and what that leads to war between the two sides. Seems like those might be important issues to deal with in play and exploring those issues also seems more likely if that content is player-generated, unless it is really top-notch and compelling, like Montsegur 1244. Also, while I like the way cultural traits are developed through symbolic association, I wish some of the more sophisticated cultural-modeling ideas of Simon Carryer had been incorporated. They also use playing cards as a basis, so there’s definitely the potential for some good cross-pollination there. I also think riffing off Simon would allow for more space in which to deal with the kinds of issues that an ethnic conflict or civil war necessarily brings up: identity, loyalty, boundaries, prejudice, etc. Finally, the number of different resources in the game seems overly many. You already have a deck of cards, which is being used to draw and discard and a physical record of the scenes (with winners and losers) on the skin, so it seems redundant to also vote with accumulated tokens to ultimately determine the victorious side. The mechanics for earning vote tokens were also a major distraction when reading the text, because it wasn’t clear in the beginning what they were for or if it was important to pay attention to them.

Overall, this game is pretty solid. But I can’t help but feel that the game would be better if it provided guidelines for the players to invent names and important locations for the different parties involved in the war, rather than starting with the names Ilho, Croen, and the city of Seraphin. I’m not sure what those are really adding to the game. For example, the biggest question in the game, one that is not at all addressed by the rules or the text, is where these two “cultures” in this war came from, why they share the city of Seraphin, why the last king died, and what that leads to war between the two sides. Seems like those might be important issues to deal with in play and exploring those issues also seems more likely if that content is player-generated, unless it is really top-notch and compelling, like Montsegur 1244. Also, while I like the way cultural traits are developed through symbolic association, I wish some of the more sophisticated cultural-modeling ideas of Simon Carryer had been incorporated. They also use playing cards as a basis, so there’s definitely the potential for some good cross-pollination there. I also think riffing off Simon would allow for more space in which to deal with the kinds of issues that an ethnic conflict or civil war necessarily brings up: identity, loyalty, boundaries, prejudice, etc. Finally, the number of different resources in the game seems overly many. You already have a deck of cards, which is being used to draw and discard and a physical record of the scenes (with winners and losers) on the skin, so it seems redundant to also vote with accumulated tokens to ultimately determine the victorious side. The mechanics for earning vote tokens were also a major distraction when reading the text, because it wasn’t clear in the beginning what they were for or if it was important to pay attention to them. Cookery: I don’t really see the theme much here, but Skin and City are prominent.

I don’t really see the theme much here, but Skin and City are prominent. Conclusion: I’m torn, because I think the game could be significantly better than this current draft, but it’s solid enough to play as is and there aren’t any major gaps aside from the major one: “Why are we fighting in the first place?” So, Finalist. Let the people decide.

The Chaos Lords and the Desert of Death by David Best

Chaos Lords is an over the top science fantasy RPG where the players are heroes drawn from across space and time to the end of the universe to fight Death before he claims the Last City. Concept: A relatively rules-light sandbox game in which a group of random heroes plucked from throughout time attempt to battle Death and his forces at the end of the universe. Doesn’t really grab me nowadays, necessarily, but I’m sure I would have loved this in Middle School when I played nothing but Rifts. Woohoo!

A relatively rules-light sandbox game in which a group of random heroes plucked from throughout time attempt to battle Death and his forces at the end of the universe. Doesn’t really grab me nowadays, necessarily, but I’m sure I would have loved this in Middle School when I played nothing but Rifts. Woohoo! Execution/Completeness: I’m going to combine these two comment categories here, because they ran together in my response. The system has a couple of clever ideas here. The dice mechanic is neat, in the way that d20s and d30s generate automatic successes with their tens digit and still give you a roll result with the ones digit. On the whole though, I’m not sure what to make of it. Even with the craziness of the premise, the rules don’t offer very much that convinces me that I’m better off using these rules than Fudge, d20, Fate, or TSOY, all of which provide more structure for fighting and adventuring in a cross-genre environment. In truth, the game reminds me the most, thematically speaking, of Mythender, in terms of being a sandbox – though with no really rules for anything other than fighting a bunch of dudes leading up to a mega final battle, which makes me wonder why you would do anything except fight dudes – but Mythender at least offers a set of mechanics that make the battles themselves fairly compelling. Along those lines, the unfinished classic Scarlet Wake is also a bit similar, I suppose. There is definitely a way to string a bunch of random fights together and make them really work, but I don’t really see that happening here. The fight mechanics aren’t particularly interesting and there’s nothing else to do that takes their place. So either I just don’t get it or this game isn’t really driving hard at a particular purpose. Is it about the fights? Then the fight mechanics need to be more interesting. Is it about beating Death? Then we need interesting rules for that. Is it about doing things in the Last City? Then we need interesting rules for that.

I’m going to combine these two comment categories here, because they ran together in my response. The system has a couple of clever ideas here. The dice mechanic is neat, in the way that d20s and d30s generate automatic successes with their tens digit and still give you a roll result with the ones digit. On the whole though, I’m not sure what to make of it. Even with the craziness of the premise, the rules don’t offer very much that convinces me that I’m better off using these rules than Fudge, d20, Fate, or TSOY, all of which provide more structure for fighting and adventuring in a cross-genre environment. In truth, the game reminds me the most, thematically speaking, of Mythender, in terms of being a sandbox – though with no really rules for anything other than fighting a bunch of dudes leading up to a mega final battle, which makes me wonder why you would do anything except fight dudes – but Mythender at least offers a set of mechanics that make the battles themselves fairly compelling. Along those lines, the unfinished classic Scarlet Wake is also a bit similar, I suppose. There is definitely a way to string a bunch of random fights together and make them really work, but I don’t really see that happening here. The fight mechanics aren’t particularly interesting and there’s nothing else to do that takes their place. So either I just don’t get it or this game isn’t really driving hard at a particular purpose. Is it about the fights? Then the fight mechanics need to be more interesting. Is it about beating Death? Then we need interesting rules for that. Is it about doing things in the Last City? Then we need interesting rules for that. Cookery: A lot of the ingredients here seem mashed together or forced a bit, which leads to a madcap sort of feel. That’s fine in general, but may be contributing to the lack of focus this game seems to have. Madcap is cool as long as you support it and make it compelling or at least exciting.

A lot of the ingredients here seem mashed together or forced a bit, which leads to a madcap sort of feel. That’s fine in general, but may be contributing to the lack of focus this game seems to have. Madcap is cool as long as you support it and make it compelling or at least exciting. Conclusion: Definitely feels like an initial sketch of a concept, not a game ready to be playtested.

Burial at Crossroads by Bryan Hansel

Deliver a skinner across the desert to Oasis, the city of exile. An exile’s fresh start means your fresh start. You’re joined by a mercenary, scientist, gambler, frontiersman, forgotten marshal and a native. Arrive together, apart or alone. Concept: This game reads like a distillation (yum, moonshine!) of every face-stabbing indie game of the past 5-6 years. A motley group of characters have to deliver what is basically a corpse-in-a-box from one end of a God-forsaken post-apocalyptic piece of cowboy country to the other, supposedly without killing each other (but where’s the fun in that, right?). It’s not revolutionary, but it shows someone’s been paying attention.

This game reads like a distillation (yum, moonshine!) of every face-stabbing indie game of the past 5-6 years. A motley group of characters have to deliver what is basically a corpse-in-a-box from one end of a God-forsaken post-apocalyptic piece of cowboy country to the other, supposedly without killing each other (but where’s the fun in that, right?). It’s not revolutionary, but it shows someone’s been paying attention. Execution: This is another game very clearly inspired by Vincent Baker, specifically Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World, but the addition of Keys (from TSOY), Conditions (from any number of games), and GM-set target difficulties for rolls makes it feel pretty different. Also, the whole premise feels much more like The Mountain Witch + Lady Blackbird, especially with the inclusion of Take A Stand, which works like Trust in tracking the arrangement of loyalties in the group (and the fact that the title implies that some folks are gonna die). Honestly, having the GM set difficulties feels really weird in a game as Baker-esque as this; it feels unfair, somehow, since the numbers are invented on the spot rather than coming from GM prep. A few other concerns: I worry a bit that the requirement to hit condition-style desires at least every other time you hit a desire will feel artificial, bopping back and forth between them. Also, do characters take injury conditions in order (as implied in some places) or based on the fiction / GM’s choice (which the wound rules seem to imply)? Take A Stand is really cool but the procedures need to be much, much clearer. Can I roll against every other character involved in the stand? Do I get the dice I buy to roll against every other character or do I have to pay for extra dice each time? Do other players also get to roll and make adjustments to the groupings or just the player taking a stand? If everyone can roll, this could take all night. How do you know when the standoff is over? More generally, having the GM keep track of when the characters perform actions (and, therefore, when you roll dice) seems less than ideal, given the number of actions each character can potentially have, but that could just be an awkward description and not an intentional change from the status quo in Apocalypse World. At the very end of the document, it says both sides must risk their lives in order for a character to die, which seems to clash with the Take A Stand rules as currently written, when one character can risk their life without others doing so.

This is another game very clearly inspired by Vincent Baker, specifically Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World, but the addition of Keys (from TSOY), Conditions (from any number of games), and GM-set target difficulties for rolls makes it feel pretty different. Also, the whole premise feels much more like The Mountain Witch + Lady Blackbird, especially with the inclusion of Take A Stand, which works like Trust in tracking the arrangement of loyalties in the group (and the fact that the title implies that some folks are gonna die). Honestly, having the GM set difficulties feels really weird in a game as Baker-esque as this; it feels unfair, somehow, since the numbers are invented on the spot rather than coming from GM prep. A few other concerns: I worry a bit that the requirement to hit condition-style desires at least every other time you hit a desire will feel artificial, bopping back and forth between them. Also, do characters take injury conditions in order (as implied in some places) or based on the fiction / GM’s choice (which the wound rules seem to imply)? Take A Stand is really cool but the procedures need to be much, much clearer. Can I roll against every other character involved in the stand? Do I get the dice I buy to roll against every other character or do I have to pay for extra dice each time? Do other players also get to roll and make adjustments to the groupings or just the player taking a stand? If everyone can roll, this could take all night. How do you know when the standoff is over? More generally, having the GM keep track of when the characters perform actions (and, therefore, when you roll dice) seems less than ideal, given the number of actions each character can potentially have, but that could just be an awkward description and not an intentional change from the status quo in Apocalypse World. At the very end of the document, it says both sides must risk their lives in order for a character to die, which seems to clash with the Take A Stand rules as currently written, when one character can risk their life without others doing so. Completeness: This game is so, so close to being all the way there. A few things like the lack of complete clarity in the Take A Stand rules and the limited guidelines for GM-set target numbers are holding it up from being 95% awesome, I think. If it was me, I’d try to make the target numbers fixed (perhaps for each location on the map or using some other distribution method) or part of the GM’s prep somehow.

This game is so, so close to being all the way there. A few things like the lack of complete clarity in the Take A Stand rules and the limited guidelines for GM-set target numbers are holding it up from being 95% awesome, I think. If it was me, I’d try to make the target numbers fixed (perhaps for each location on the map or using some other distribution method) or part of the GM’s prep somehow. Cookery: Nice use of the theme and ingredients, plus the first real game to take advantage of this year’s guidelines opening the contest up to hacks. There are a few places where the remix works less well than the originals, but that’s probably expected in an alpha draft where the pieces have not quite stewed together enough yet. I’d expect some of the seams to show in playtesting too, but you should be able to sew the parts back together.

Nice use of the theme and ingredients, plus the first real game to take advantage of this year’s guidelines opening the contest up to hacks. There are a few places where the remix works less well than the originals, but that’s probably expected in an alpha draft where the pieces have not quite stewed together enough yet. I’d expect some of the seams to show in playtesting too, but you should be able to sew the parts back together. Conclusion: There’s so much good happening here that it has to be a Finalist I think, despite some significant lingering issues. Fix this stuff so it’ll rock even more when people play it!

The Doldrums by Zac Dettwyler

Join a world that’s tearing itself apart just to keep itself going; a city where the downtrodden rise up to stop the horrors that abound; a hero who will fall by tale’s end. Choose a side, find trustworthy allies, and join the struggle! Concept: Players take on the roles of characters – either the Star, their Cohort, or random Chorus members – in a player-generated setting broken down into three areas: the City, Ruins, and the Border between them. This is a decent concept, but, once we start playing these characters, what do we do?

Players take on the roles of characters – either the Star, their Cohort, or random Chorus members – in a player-generated setting broken down into three areas: the City, Ruins, and the Border between them. This is a decent concept, but, once we start playing these characters, what do we do? Execution: There’s definitely some good stuff happening here. The example setting bits that are sprinkled throughout are very evocative and compelling. The relationship mechanics, measured in “hands” (as in what you lend someone) is very clever, perhaps the most interesting mechanic in the game. Unfortunately, the mancala-based resolution mechanic, while neat in its own right, seems more like a gimmick than something specifically tied into the game. Plus, as the text acknowledges, I wonder if mancala is ideal for resolution since player skill can matter a great deal in the outcome. Overall, I like the idea of a “star” protagonist character a great deal, but there’s very little description of how to treat them or play them in relation to the other character types. Additionally, in a contrast to my comments on Chronicles of Skin (15), I find the example settings in this case to be much more compelling than the setting-less structure the rules offer you. There just doesn’t seem to be enough flavor to the rules, on their own, to give the players a sense of what to actually do in the game, and because there’s no fixed setting, it’s impossible to look to the narrative to provide structure (“You’re guards and your job is to protect the king” or whatever). Picking a particularly compelling setting concept – and there are plenty of them here — and basing the entire game around it would have led to a stronger result, perhaps.

There’s definitely some good stuff happening here. The example setting bits that are sprinkled throughout are very evocative and compelling. The relationship mechanics, measured in “hands” (as in what you lend someone) is very clever, perhaps the most interesting mechanic in the game. Unfortunately, the mancala-based resolution mechanic, while neat in its own right, seems more like a gimmick than something specifically tied into the game. Plus, as the text acknowledges, I wonder if mancala is ideal for resolution since player skill can matter a great deal in the outcome. Overall, I like the idea of a “star” protagonist character a great deal, but there’s very little description of how to treat them or play them in relation to the other character types. Additionally, in a contrast to my comments on Chronicles of Skin (15), I find the example settings in this case to be much more compelling than the setting-less structure the rules offer you. There just doesn’t seem to be enough flavor to the rules, on their own, to give the players a sense of what to actually do in the game, and because there’s no fixed setting, it’s impossible to look to the narrative to provide structure (“You’re guards and your job is to protect the king” or whatever). Picking a particularly compelling setting concept – and there are plenty of them here — and basing the entire game around it would have led to a stronger result, perhaps. Completeness: The guidelines for setting creation are relatively short and suggest discussing things like whether there is magic and how silly the game is, which seem like much less significant worries than, like, what the heck is the game about. Additionally, having characters defined primarily by their location (City, Ruins, or Border) denies the opportunity for characters that cross boundaries and therefore begin the game in tension, which seems like a wasted opportunity. What if you are City member who’s discovered how corrupt and decadent the City is? What if you are a Borderlander who’s secretly a Ruins sympathizer? More critically than these other complaints, which are small, easily fixed issues, is the general lack of direction in framing scenes or creating narrative content of any kind. Having read the game, I’m still not sure what I’m supposed to do with it. Additionally, similar to Nowhere Road (06), it doesn’t provide very clear guidelines for knowing when you should reach for the conflict resolution rules or what that even means. In GMless games this is a critical issue, since you’re sharing responsibility for invoking mechanics, making a shared understanding of the basic principles critical.

The guidelines for setting creation are relatively short and suggest discussing things like whether there is magic and how silly the game is, which seem like much less significant worries than, like, what the heck is the game about. Additionally, having characters defined primarily by their location (City, Ruins, or Border) denies the opportunity for characters that cross boundaries and therefore begin the game in tension, which seems like a wasted opportunity. What if you are City member who’s discovered how corrupt and decadent the City is? What if you are a Borderlander who’s secretly a Ruins sympathizer? More critically than these other complaints, which are small, easily fixed issues, is the general lack of direction in framing scenes or creating narrative content of any kind. Having read the game, I’m still not sure what I’m supposed to do with it. Additionally, similar to Nowhere Road (06), it doesn’t provide very clear guidelines for knowing when you should reach for the conflict resolution rules or what that even means. In GMless games this is a critical issue, since you’re sharing responsibility for invoking mechanics, making a shared understanding of the basic principles critical. Cookery: Don’t really see the theme, but Edge and City are clearly here.

Don’t really see the theme, but Edge and City are clearly here. Conclusion: An interesting concept, but not really a fully developed game yet. I think it needs a stronger sense of identity – something for the game to be about – and then it might be a