Jason Petrasko's January's Frost ranks among the best entries regarding treating sexual-partners women as human beings and protagonists, along with Darling Grove and The Suburban Crucible. Ha! Thought I was only about the bimbos and the savage satire, didn't you?

A small point to start: Jason, I think you should stick with your original setting concept. It's evocative and very engaging. I discovered at GenCon that terms like "Baltic" or "old-school Russian" are big, big draws, far more so than I would have expected.

Here are a bunch of things from my notes.

1. Using the term "sorcerer" for the GM, Nikolai, and for any of the husbands is way too confusing. It forced me to decipher nearly every instruction.

2. Describing "demonic" magic as something that is never done (p. 7, near bottom) makes no sense at all, considering that play is practically centered around doing exactly that. I realize that the sorcerers would tell their wives not to do it, that it's "never done," but here it reads like instructions to the players. As a general rule, I think the whole text suffers from trying to explain the rules for the real people via describing/presenting stuff as the in-game characters see and talk about them.

3. I don't see why the GM has authority over whether one player's proposal for another's conflict is acceptable. You wrote,

The point of letting the sorcerer embrace or dismiss each idea is to allow them to direct the style of feel of play into the realm they want to explore. If the idea proposed by a player is thought provoking and ideas shoot into your head, then run with it. If not, tell that player why it doesn’t work for you and ask for another suggestion.

This was another game that caught my notice.  The first thing is that it's a really pretty game (kudos on the layout, and I love the art).  The second is the author's obvious enthusiasm for the subject matter (as evidenced in the world background section).

The thing that I didn't like was how limited the scope of the game was; players can only select from among a small pool of eligible characters to play, and the setting consists of a very limited geographical area.  This sort of thing is more suited to a convention one-shot than to an extended campaign.

Thank you Ron, for both the kind words and taking the time to give me critical feedback. Let me stave off response of the critical feedback for a moment, and talk about the root idea for the game. It ties in rather strongly to the world backdrop/russian setting.

When I read the anouncement for the Ronny 24 Hour RPG contest, I had no plan on making one. It was not until I read the two concepts that an idea spring into my mind. Since I was going to make something of the idea anyway, I chose to enter it in. This was done less in the hopes of winning. My driving purpose was to create a game that actually needed the Forge, since I've not yet come away from this site with what I would deem constructive feedback. To do this I just stepped far outside my usual game designs and tried something different. So you end up with the cluttered/muddled game I have entered, though I think the core story is strong and interesting.

Oh, the very first root idea I had: The challenges and drama faced by girlfriends of Warlocks that venture to secretly learn their magic, and the first spell they learn allows them to transform into rats. From that, I had a lot of options but I knew I wanted a traditional fantasy feel of a somewhat fairy-tale nature. Add in the russian imagery/setting and you end up with January's Frost. Now, onto the feedback!

First, Given the responses I've got towards the imlpied setting, I plan on keeping it and integrating it better into the game.

1.) I can see how that would be confusing. I could call the GM either just GM or Sorcerer Player (SP) or such. That would clarify it.

2.) Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I didn't mean that as literal instruction to the players but as an in-character recommendation.

3.) Ah, the GM's final say issue. I too have misgivings about that. At the time of writing, I had thought that since the GM/SP/Sorcerer starts the initial narration, they really need to be into the issue at hand. Of course I could wave that, and let the player the proposes the issue be the one that starts narration. Hmmm, I'll have to think more about that.

4.) On magic and consequence. I think that whole rules section needs rewritten, and possibly pruned. "This number doesn't mean anything at the moment, but hold on." That is one major error in the game text, since the number rolled is literally strength of consequence. I ran out of time and was unable to add in examples of each strength. Your overall assessment of how the current resolution system works is pretty correct.

4-A) Yes, if the sister chooses to shadow then half of the rolled consequence is added to her current shadow score.

4-B) The two options here simply change the way that the consequence is expressed. Either:  1.) It is equal or less in strength than her shadow score, and the sister's shadows causes mischief to those around her or 2.) It is higher and the consequence is inflicted directly upon her. So, in a fashion shadow acts as a shield for personal consequence and deflects it upon those around a sister. Yes, the shadow score is unaffected by that goes on here.

4-C) In the case that the shadow wins a Refute, then the magic is carried out by the Shadow (like a wish) and the sister suffers torment just as Embrace works. That is pretty confusing as written, and really needs some examples.

5) I was trying to keep the idea of suffering the effect of torment (horror) and torment (a pain score) individual and was not quite sure that using either just horror or torment for both would be clear.

6) Now that I have taken a step away and read the game again, I can see what you mean. I was actively looking for ways to include the ensemble and got a bit carried away. As of this moment though, I'm unsure if I want the mechanics (like a roll) or the GM/SP/Sorcerer to choose which the sister gets. *thinks*

7) Sure, that would work. Not only would it make for a more fluid and speeder game, but also clear up some of the 'who has the power now' confusion.

8) I'm interested in how you come to your conclusion here. I see it as a matter of perspective. The shadow/horror count is some personal to the sister, and a matter that should be handled by family or a lover. Nothing in this case breaks any of the three magics and the sorcerers (as a society) view each sister as the responsibility of their respective husband. Fleece works directly against The Pledge. It places the station of the sister inside the sorcerer's society in question, and there needs resolved by the societies leader Nikolai.

9) Possibly this is something that will get pruned during playtest, since I had included as a door out of a situation that became stagnant in play.

10) I also think that is an exicting idea, and something that will be expanded as I work on the game more. I just want to get the core down before I go and expand the rules in another direction.

Here is how I currently feel about the game:

I love: The core story, The basic structure of proposal/play rounds, The ability to take narration with the 'Wouldn't it be cool if?', The 3 magics, and the backdrop.

I'm unsure about: The magic resolution (needs simplified some or more than some, but perhaps a rewrite would do the trick), The 'who has the power' issues (which are more confusing that need be), and The role of the ensemble (who I want active but not with definite control).

Michael,
Thanks for the praise! I rather enjoy doing layout actually. Now, from one point of view I can see what you are saying about small pool of characters and very limited geographical area. On the other hand, I think with engaging and interesting characters played by concerned role-players the game would work fine in a campaign length affair. You would just need a level of interest in the lives of these sorcerers, sisters, and the people of the village. Some things are not clearly stated in the game that might also lead you to fill in your own ideas, here is one instance of such a fact: as rats outside the valley the sisters can work magic. The rules don't exclude that, but they also don't specifically state that it is possible.

Thanks for the critical feedback!,
Jason

This was one of the first Ronnies entries I read. It's a startlingly beautiful game and one I'd want to play.

I absolutely agree with Ron about keeping the setting. It's an incredibly romantic, evocative setting: as far as Russian history goes, it's very close to Chekhov and the Emancipation of the Serfs.

If I have one complaint, it's that there's a couple of phrases in the text that seem anachronistic. One of them is "Wouldn't it be cool if?". It really jarred when I read it through: a very modern American phrase in the middle of a fairytale game.

The reason I'm complaining about that, you understand, is because the game is generally so nicely written. The modern phrases stand out.

Graham

Hi Jason,

I wrote:

Now, if I'm reading correctly, the Fleece count and consequential rolls lead up to a confrontation with Nikolai specifically. This seems weird in relationship to the Shadow/Horror reaching 7, which results in a confrontation with one's husband.

Shouldn't the Shadow/Horror effect result in confronting Nikolai, and the Fleece roll result in confronting the husband? That makes much, more sense to me.

I'm interested in how you come to your conclusion here. I see it as a matter of perspective. The shadow/horror count is some personal to the sister, and a matter that should be handled by family or a lover. Nothing in this case breaks any of the three magics and the sorcerers (as a society) view each sister as the responsibility of their respective husband. Fleece works directly against The Pledge. It places the station of the sister inside the sorcerer's society in question, and there needs resolved by the societies leader Nikolai.