I really love this game, I haven’t played it yet but flipping through its pages and seeing how it works and the ways it inspires creativity and the bleak joy of futility and fate in fantasy. The system has enough tooth to get into and feel engaged but gives you plenty of space to make your own story. I was really impressed by the layers at play here and can’t wait to engage with it some more! 

A Good Death Review

Alright, so I know I told you I'd write a comment and rate the game tomorrow but some plans fell through for tonight so I decided to give this a go instead. I played a few games, and have some feedback for you as a result. Let's start by getting the boring stuff out of the way.

All of my comments are for the game's initial release after zero revisions on 5/25/21. Some, if not all, of my comments may be rendered redundant or unnecessary after any updates. Future readers please consider this carefully before deciding if this game is for you or not, as well as for your overall rating if you give one (if these things are addressed, you should definitely rate higher).

Some Revisions Needed BUT... (Boring Designer Stuff, You Can Skip This if You Want)

As I said on your original posting, I really like the way your game looks and how it's laid out. It's also pretty easy to get the idea of your game, there's some great appeal there. However, when I actually jumped into the game I noticed a few things that should be addressed.

First, there are a few spelling/grammar mistakes. It's all very minor stuff like:  "A notable figure in the annuals of your people." where you meant to use "annals". Not a big deal, but the few mistakes there were jumped out at me. I'm certainly guilty of this happening even when I have multiple people run edits for me, so this is a "boring" comment more for your info than anything else.

I also feel like you could simplify and clarify the phrasing:  "...cannot be contested or escalated, nor cost glory to accept." This is wordy and caused some confusion on an initial reading, as in I had to read it over a few times to ensure I was following your instructions well. If I had to suggest an alternative I would maybe use:

"Automatically accepted but does not cost glory."

Lastly, you half mention this, but some clarity on what happens if you go negative glory would not be missed. I often would purposefully let my glory drop to the negative values since it seemed that there was no penalty as it would just count as "0", meaning I incurred no risk for many turns of the game. It's the one aspect that just needs stronger reinforcement rule-wise.

Overall, the clarity of the document is there and you certainly have a good level of polish for a 2 page game. I think you did a great job, especially for your first time at this!

Points of Praise

Now that we've gotten the boring stuff out of the way, I want to go over what I think "A Good Death" does well. It's always nice to hear some positive stuff before any negatives after all.

Beyond what I've already said above, the biggest success here is the theme and presentation. You are killing it here. I loved setting up the character and really felt the creative juices flowing when it came to inspiring the narrative component of the game.

Finally, the game is pretty quick to setup and play for the most part (more on that shortly). I was able to play the 2 games I did in about an hour, answering the questions posed each turn to myself before proceeding with the next turn. There's a level of cinematic flow that exists here, which I liked.

Problems

Unfortunately, here's the part nobody really likes to hear. I want to stress that I think you have a GREAT foundation but there are some flaws that really put a damper on the experience for me.

1. Setup
2. Mechanics Vs. Theme
3. "Difficulty"

Setup

The first issue I have is with the game's setup. The whole "Ace of Spades" thing feels convoluted. I would almost rather it were something like this:

"Set aside the Ace of Spades and then thoroughly shuffle the deck. Afterwards, randomly insert the card face up about 2/3rds or half way into the deck."

This satisfies the idea of what the Ace is meant to do (add an alternative way to end the game for pacing). As it is, this mechanic is largely redundant since I never got even close to nearing the deck's end. It was also the only part of setting the game up I actively disliked both times I played. My solution still requires the player to slow down the setup process, but is faster to reset and more realistic for what I believe you are trying to achieve. I managed to go at least 1/3rd to half of the deck in each game.

Mechanics Vs. Theme

Under the current rules there is a pretty bad clash when it comes to "A Good Death's" mechanics compared to the theme. Narratively, I am totally with the game, but the mechanics often tell me to do something different. Allow me to explain.

Right now the best strategy for "winning" this game is to ALWAYS take risks and roll for glory. In fact, take glory whenever possible. Nothing else matters. Hit 0 health or strength? No problem, it's going to happen anyway and the only value in having the game go longer is on the narrative side, or if you don't have any glory at all.

If I let the defenses fall or the people die, I'm not punished in other words. That's why I would propose these mechanics are given a second look. However, I don't want to leave you high and dry, so here's a few suggestions on how you could maybe fix this disconnect.

• Have the player lose glory after certain fixed intervals of health or strength the first time they are hit (for one or the other, both seems like it would be too much without another adjustment). These should be constants. You start at 50 in each so maybe at break points 35/20/5.
  • To this point, you could offset this new setback and even have it apply to both statistics if you gave the player a free fate or something "minor" like that. This basically gives a chance to win the lost glory back but with some risk. Additionally, a "loss" is fated in that regard, so this thematically is just much more consistent and makes more sense.
• Add some additional setback for failing a contested roll. Right now if you fail with any 1's or 2's, all that happens is you lose a glory. Maybe 5 points in one of the two stats if you have none. Meaning, there's basically no risk to the player to roll. They "win" on a 3-6, or in other words 2/3rds of the time. Even though a 5 or 6 is what gives the glory, a 3 or 4 is a positive result as it is effectively the same as accepting with zero downside.
  • What makes this worse is if you save up a bunch of fate and just roll all your dice in a big go. Even one 5 or 6 nets you something as the 1's and 2's are overridden. If you get really lucky, you just net a ton of points, with again, no risk.
• Accepting your fate is a wasted action, always. There is no reason to take this and is thus wasted space in the rules. Either cut this (the boring option, i.e. bad thing to do) or add a benefit to the player for doing this. I would just give the player a fate point, since again, your loss is fated. It's thematically better and gives this action a reason to exist.

These are just the first things that popped into my head when playing, I'm sure there are other little tweaks and changes you already have in mind but I would strongly consider some combination, if not all of the changes I list above.

Difficulty

This brings me to my final point. As a direct result of these two problems, the game is way too easy. I never had less than 5 glory, each time ending closer to the 7+ range. On the one hand, this made the narrative cooler which is what this game is doing well, so that's a win. However, it made the game very boring as a result to actually play. I basically knew I could win by doing x, y, and z.

Naturally, in a game that wants you to focus on narrative first, I shouldn't have been trying to "win". People are going to do this though and I can promise you it will result in folks revisiting this title with less frequency. I was already tapped after 2 goes, so while I am speaking personally here, I also have data from my own game creation experiences to back this up. Most people don't mind if a game is "harder" as long as it feels fair. Whether it is or not doesn't matter usually.

I almost feel like you could make losing more appealing by changing the 0-2 range from "being forgotten", to only being remembered by some fringe group of scientists or something. This paragraph is entirely subjective and just my personal view. I'm also not a typical player as I'm playing as a fellow designer and trying to break your game on purpose. Honestly, this is up to you, but I would at least look at this a little more closely.

Final Thoughts

"A Good Death" was a great first step forward in putting yourself out there which I find very commendable. I sincerely hope my comments are received as constructive and aren't discouraging to you. The game felt like it needed a little more time in the oven with some outside playtesting.

WITH THAT SAID...

• The game was created in 48 hours as a challenge (something you should mention on the page since that makes this more impressive)
• This was your first public go, you are going to make mistakes. I certainly did. Take those and improve for next time (and here, because nobody is stopping you)

To the consumer questioning whether to play this game or not:

Yes, give it a shot! Especially if this gets updated.

In spite of what I've said, I still think there's a quality product here, and if what I've mentioned is addressed, I can see it being popular in the journaling crowd. I believe folks should always see for themselves and judge accordingly, but if anyone is on the fence you have my answer.

This game is actually good, not gonna lie.
I cannot wait to play this!