by Cyantic » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:23 pm
Let me preface this:
I think Poly has the genuine potential of being a brilliant host. His focus on minute details is second to none - from the start at the hotel room to the paintings in the Diner, to room contents, I found it all well laid out and fairly logical. That's good! The improv was a good idea, the 2nd strategic game well thought out, it made a lot of sense to me.
The issues to this game probably lie more with Zero than anything else, looking back. Johnson was a horrible Zero. If I was going to go for this game: revealing the factions halfway through is kind of silly. Tom had aligned himself with people all across the spectrum, so knowing that information then just kind of lead to a weird dissonance. Do I join together with them even though I have no relation and forsake the people I've met... or..?
Characters as a whole were the driving force, not the plot. The plot got away from Poly and he never got it back under control. Without demonstration of how 'cleaning up America is possible', disbelief and coalition work sort of became standard for most people. This pushed the game away from a political focus, and the farther it went, the less it mattered to anyone. I think towards the end there were so few ideologically minded people, it might as well have been a standard game in a lab (and probably would've gone better if that was the case).
Johnson's refusal to demonstrate and his sometimes chummy/sometimes antagonistic character to this sort of defeated the game. It gave players something to rally around and stop fighting each other - mostly.
If I was going back, I'd probably put more restrictions on characters. I sort of went with something memey and incoherent, and while Tom could be a good anarchist, sure, he needed pushed into it. I half assumed there would be something on government overreach or whatever that would convince him one way or another, but that never came to pass. I'd do away with Zero and focus on something on the plot - say this is a secret weapon that can turn the tide or whatever. Push it more to subterfuge - investigative abilities, traps, that sort of thing. Throw in some characters that could be swayed - 4 radicals, 4 'federalists', 4 neutrals.
I think that probably would've kept a more political focus without it getting entirely out of hand. Also, either start with the factions revealed to other faction mates or don't touch it. Everyone kind of guessed from there, and it weakened the game as a whole.
I never did get to much content by myself. Part of this was me being gone for the beginning of roaming, hitting rooms that had nothing (bathroom and showers spring to mind), but also because Nicole was a constant headache. I didn't want to leave Terrance, Peter, or Inteus alone if I could avoid it because Nicole was (from my POV) completely incoherent and a dangerous element, likely to shoot someone if I didn't account for it.
I don't think that's a knock on the game, though, just an emergent feature. Didn't feel like there was enough currency to get good use out of the shops and all, though.
1st Strategic Game, has to be said, worst iteration of the AB game I've seen. 2nd was actually really good, the issue was the drift to more character conflict which just wasn't really happening, and 3rd was innovative and flexible. I think 'leaving four people in limbo' is not a good move, but I won't protest it too harshly, I guess. Wiping out all the Radicals could have been viewed as unfair, but at that point the political aim to the game was so dead it didn't matter.
I don't know if I can summarise this, but hey. I didn't hate the game. I just have complex feelings over it.
(chess puzzled sucked so bad tho sorry)