I have to hand it to you on the mystery in your review: until I got to the end, I didn't realize that you didn't like the game.
That can't be said about many reviews. Whether it is from your even-handedness or from admiration of the game designer's creativity (even if you didn't like the result), I don't know. But bravo to you and the designers of the game.
I have to hand it to you on the mystery in your review: until I got to the end, I didn't realize that you didn't like the game.
That can't be said about many reviews. Whether it is from your even-handedness or from admiration of the game designer's creativity (even if you didn't like the result), I don't know. But bravo to you and the designers of the game.
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crothian
Have you had a chance to play it? I found that the4 game plays better then it reads.
I agree with all the previous posters. Thanks for giving a game that wasn't exactly your cup of tea such a fair shake.
I'm biased, but I agree with Crothian: it plays a bit different than how you read it. However, you've definitely illustrated some points that I might not have clearly addressed in the book.
For instance, and I might be misunderstanding what you meant, but there is a considerable amount of player authorship going on in the game. It is just that the interplay between player and GM authorship is designed to occur in ways that shouldn't break immersion. Before the game starts, the player has a lot of leeway in filling out the questionnaire, which not only allows them to make the character they want, but also shape the scenario they are about to play. When a player answers the question about childhood fears by saying their character was once attacked by dogs, that's an invite to bring Cujo to the party.
During the scenario, pulls from the tower are sacred, and I really should have made that more clear in the book. That's something I'm a little embarrassed about. A player should never have to pull and discover it was for naught. This goes for clues. In fact, the only reason pulling for clues is mentioned in the book is because mysteries are inherent to horror, and mysteries can also be extraordinarily frustrating for players. The pull for a clue option gives the players a chance to say, "Okay, I'm really not getting this, and I'm willing to risk my character for another hint." It shouldn't be necessary, but it is a form of recourse for the players.
Again, I really should have made that much clearer in the book: a pull should be a powerful tool for the player to shape the story. It's a chance to say, "No, it's not going down like this," or, "this is how it's going to be," and then step up to the plate and do something about it.
Speaking of which, I think where you see disincentive for character action, many see incentive. Which is probably a taste thing. The thrill in Dread comes from dancing with your character's mortality. Avoiding the tower is like watching a horror movie and fast forwarding through all the scary scenes--if you find yourself doing that, you probably wanted to watch something else in the first place. The tower is as much about temptation as it is about fear.
You've definitely given me food for thought about how I should be communicating these things. Thanks again for the critical review.
Good review. I played Dread at Origins 07 and it was my favorite game of the convention. I also have to say that it was the best horror game, in play, of any I've played. The Jenga mechanic worked really well to add tension to the player interplay. I would definitely agree with those who said that the game plays out, or can play out, far more interestingly than you might expect, in the hands of a good gm. The book gives you lots of advice that leads you in the right direction, too.
Linear Mode
