I decided to start commenting the reviews I've recieved about Burning Opera.
First of all, I want to thank all the reviewer that took care of that work; there's a review missing, though :/
(
I'll put red numbers (like this: (1)) in the quote, and then answer one by one those marked points)
Let's start with the first comment:
Burning Opera is in fact one and the same “role-playing poem” played in turn by each player, but in interesting way framed into story about actors in a burning theater.
For me, especially interesting in this game is its “casketed” (story within a story) construction. The section “Sliping into the fiction” about creating a story’s decorations and concept of Lantern are a little pearls of design.
Unfortunately, this interesting construction was a little undermined by unclear for me mixing, confusing, identifying? actors with real players. (1)
I understand that this is jepform, serious game, etc.
But I think it would be easier for a player, roleplay fe. a farewell to her daughter by character, than himself. And the emotions should be the same, or even stronger, due to lack of shy or self-control. Not to mention about the burning real players’ names, what may be abusive. (1)
Interesting is the idea of Protagonist’s injury, but I think it was worth to emphasize role of this later in the game. Generally, I would see that the growing danger is important in the game. (2)
And why, instead of a difficult (especially for Coyote) determine when the scene should end, any player could not just “call the Lantern”?. It will be also easy way to “collision-free” interrupt of scene too intensive for somebody. (3)
By the way, the “setting” begs the limitation of “physical” space (eg, drawed by chalk). Who descends from the stage – will die. Mayby the space could be to decrease after each “art”? (4)
The ingredients were used in an interesting way and with equal importance. I like the apt remark at Meta role coyote.
The game is written clear and legibly. Only a fragment of distributing roles looks a little complicated. Perhaps becouse the lack of resolve who has what to choose.
Despite these observations, for now Burning Opera is solid, complete game, ready by play by people who like this kind of games.
(1): the idea was actually to remove the difference between Player and Character. Maybe is not well explained, still it's a choice I'm not sure right now. I'm talking about it with several people, also here on GcG (like Iacopo or Khana), and i'll probably open a new topic about it.
(2): growing danger is not the point in this game. You all know you'll die in that burning theater, sooner or later. I wanted to give a sense of return to reality after playing the Play, that's all. I don't think I want to be focused on the "danger".
(3): this is really an interesting idea, and is also what I'm thinking about those days. The concept of
breakout (the chance of escaping from a really emotive situation for the Players thanks to the rules, not ruining the whole game) can be easily applied like that. Still this could be abused, for the fact that if someone calls the Lantern too early in the game she will maybe ruin the whole Play itself. If I keep the "no barrier" between Player and Actor, this will be a good choice though, but must be a bit limited in the used. That's why i wanted all the Actor to be with one accord
in fiction that the Play needed to reach an end.
(4): actually, the idea of "they're all kept on the stage" is just a fictional excuse to force them to play. The idea of the decreasing means the first Play will be played quite far away (in steps) from other players, maybe forcing them to speak loud; as for the last Play of the game, they'd probably find themselves without space to move around, forced to stay one close to the others. I'd love to give them all the space they want to move around, use real objects to use in the fiction, stand, sit... ^^
