[Jocelyn Robitaille]

First off, I want to apologize for how long it took me to answer this post. Life got in the way in all kinds of different fashions, which pretty much took al the brainpower I have.

That apology goes to everyone who's been curious about my answers, and especially to Jake who's been nice enough to send me a comp copy of his game and write all of those useful follow-up questions.

Originally Posted by Jake Richmond

I found it strange that you felt that we were wasting space by explaining the concept behind the game in the game text. Yes, Classroom Deathmatch is absolutely meant to be Battle Royale, and is meant for people who want to play Battle Royale. We're not trying to pull in people who are not interested in that setting and those themes. However, your statement that we shouldn't bother explaining the setting on the assumption that anyone who would play the game would already be overly familiar with it strikes me as strange. While the information may not be new to a fan of Battle Royale, it I think it is important to present that information so as to provide a clear understanding of what the game is about. Also, it is important to remember that not everyone who is interested in Battle Royale is really overly familiar with it. Many people who might be interested in playing this game have only seen the film, or read one or two volumes of the manga. Some are only familiar with the concept. We wanted to make sure that we provided enough information so these people could play the game. This may mean that someone who has a very clear idea of what Battle Royale is may end up reading information that they are already familiar with. That seems like something you should maybe expect from a game based on something as specific as Battle Royale.

IMHO, Classroom Deathmatch didn't present enough of the setting for it to be useful to people unfamiliar with Battle Royale, while it could've provided a lot less and still be equally as useful to people familiar with it. You're right on one thing, though - I think the amount of info you've provided would be perfect for people knowledgeable about the premise but who haven't pursued the material. Like people who saw 30 minutes of the movie, or read one or two volumes of the manga, like you said.

This said, I'm fine with being exposed to material I'm already familiar with. My issue was more that I was getting exposed to all that familiar material, but I was still under the impression that it wouldn't be enough for someone unfamiliar with it. Should you choose to do a second edition or something, my rough guess is that 5-10 more pages of setting info could go a long way towards making the game more generally accessible.

When you described our resolution mechanic you seemed displeased and stated that you thought that it would lead to confusion and frustration. Why? You note that you thought the mechanic would lead to characters dying left and right (although you go on to say that this is in line with the source material). It's not clear to me what kind of problems you see here. The mechanic is very simple. A players success is described by their Best Friend, while their failures are described by their Rival. The nature of that success or failure is entirely up to the player that describes it. I'm not sure why this is confusing or how it could become frustrating.
I'm also not sure why you think a veto would help improve this. Could you elaborate on this? You mention that no guidelines are provided, although they are as a series of questions later in that section. Later you mention that the level of latitude that players have in descriptions may have a negative impact. That seems absurd to me. Describing success and failure is how players exert authorship over the game. How can you consider player contribution to be negative?

Here's the thing: even if the players all buy into the concept initially, their personal level of wackiness or dramatic irony or whatever may vary. By putting the life or death of characters in the the hands of different people, you may end up with different "physics" from one player to the other. If I fall down a first floor, it's possible that if Player A is my Rival, I'll end up bruised, while if I have player B as a Rival, I'll end up dead because of a broken neck. The different standards can lead to frustrations. For me, a veto mechanic can help avoid that because, through the course of play, the group establishes its own consistency. Guidelines would've been another possible way to avoid this, hence my comment on their absence. This said, I agree with you that more authorship is better, which I why I'd favor a veto mechanic over guidelines.

At one point you ask what happens if the students rebel early on and try to escape before the Superintendent has gathered Sorrow Dice to use against them. Your assumption that the game encourages the use of GM fiat to keep the players from doing this seems strange. Nowhere is this suggested anywhere in the book. The student certainly could join together and try to escape right away. Indeed, from both a setting and mechanics standpoint, this would be their best chance. If this is something that the players are interested in doing, if they decide that they want to escape right away, then the Superintendent won't have any Sorrow Dice to use against them (although he could still throw waves of weapon wielding students at them). He may have to let them go. Nothing wrong with that. If that’s the choice the players made, then that’s the game they get. That can still be an interesting game. It simply becomes about escape instead of survival. The students still have to try to find a way to leave the Battleground without exploding (that is a built in part of the game). The Superintendent can use scene creation to introduce conflicts and can have other students tag along (or follow at a distance) to provide threats. In any case, your assumption that GM fiat is what the game requires in this situation is pretty weak. Just because the game didn't go in the direction you (as the Superintendent) wanted it to doesn't mean that you need to ignore the games mechanics and try to force it using GM fiat. The mechanics of the game are designed to cover all sorts of situations. Take the mechanics and use them to address what is happening in the game. Your statement that you felt the use of GM fiat in the game to be appalling suggests to me that you haven't really considered how the game actually works. You seem to be approaching it from a more traditional gaming mindset.

The emphasis in the quote is mine. Either I completely missed the part where it's made clear that the exploding part is outside the realm of other automated defenses (and therefore does not require sorrow dice), or it needs to be pointed out more clearly. In any case, you're right, the explosive nanites do provide enough elbow room for the GM to gather sorrow dice and provide conflict. This said, I still think that the GM-side of the mechanics should pack a bit more punch to prevent early escape, considering how central the power relations between the students and the system are to the basic premise of the game. Maybe allocate 10 sorrow dice from the start, or something like that. I agree that if the players want the game to be about escaping right away, they should be allow to lead the game in that direction. The idea that they should face no opposition as they do so, however, feels a bit anticlimactic to me. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I also find your complaint about the length of the game to be strange. I can understand that you want to know how long you can expect to play. You say that our approach in the book is “the game might take a single session, or it might take a dozen… who cares?”. This isn't true at all. A game will last as long as it will last. Eventually player interest and the games time line will bring it to a close. This isn't the same as saying "who cares". It seems like you are asking for a specific time frame. Something like " 2 sessions" or "6 hours". I don't like to be that specific. In the game text I say "These events might take place over a single session, or they might stretch out for a dozen. Let the game develop at it’s own pace and don’t try
to rush it or slow it down". The nature of the game is that it will play out at it's own pace.

Yes, and for me that's a significant problem, as I've explained in my review. If I set out to play a game, I need to know what kind of length I can expect it to have. I need to know, and my fellow players need to know.

I can imagine for some people it's not a problem. More power to them, and this is a reason I try to be as exhaustive as I can in my reviews. That way, if something that's a problem for me is not an issue for the person reading the review, he or she can disregard this particular point.

The influences and recommendations section has received a lot of criticism. I included material that I watched and read as I was working on the game. This is stuff that I felt was relevant and that influenced the game design, but for the most part not things that the game actually emulates. Each is very relevant to the game and makes for interesting comparison to Battle Royale, but I didn't do a good job explaining this in the text. To be honest, I don't think this is out of place. I included it as things that influenced me and that I think players might enjoy and find relevant. It seems like most people are seeing it as things that the game is directly based on, which is simply not the case.

Gotcha, that makes it more clear.

After a second read through of your review I'm left feeling like you are bringing some of your habits and assumptions from other games over to this one. This is, of course, unavoidable. We all do this with every game we play. I do think it's influencing your opinion of the game though. Most especially, your suggestion that the Superintendent should use GM fiat seems to stem from the assumption that the Superintendent has the responsibilities and powers of a traditional GM. This isn't the case. While the Superintendent does control the games non-player characters and does design the Battleground, The responsibility of creating scenes and describing actions are divided equally among the players. The Superintendent is a facilitator, not a game master. This also seems to come into play with your issues over the conflict resolution mechanics and the distribution of narrative authority. Although you don't state exactly why you don't think the mechanic works, it seems like you're missing that the players have absolute authorship over these situations. You can't approach this in the same way you might another game.

I disagree. I've explained my issues with the conflict resolution earlier in this post. My issue with what I perceived as the necessity to use GM fiat if the players try to escape early on in the game is not about maintaining control, but rather about keeping the basic premise intact. From my perspective, if the players try to escape early on and succeed without any opposition, it might feel like a let down to them. After all, they showed up expecting to play a certain type of game, and unless they've also read the rules, they have every reason to think that an attempt to escape will be met with opposition. Who's to say that they aren't trying to escape because they want to play out heavy opposition from the adults right from the start. If that's what they want, there's nothing within the rules that allow the GM to provide said opposition.

Anyway, at the end you say that rules oversights and the issue with the games length kept you from giving us a higher score. I can certainly understand (although I don't agree with) your concerns over the games length issue. I don't agree that the things you point out as rules oversights are oversights at all. Rather, I don't think you've seen how the games mechanics apply to these situations. That said, I'll try to make the points you bring up clearer the next time I revise the games text.

Hopefully, my answers here helped make my issues with the game clearer as well.

Sorry if I sound like I’m picking on you. I appreciate the feedback and the time you spent reading and reviewing the game. Thanks. I'm eager for your response.

Don't sweat it. If our roles were reversed, I'd feel like arguing a bit too!