Pantheon and Other Games
This game is not a traditional role playing game in any sense, some might not even call it a role playing game at all. This slender 24 page book contains five games that are based upon the "Narrative Cage Match"(TM) system, which is detailed at the beginning of the book in four pages. The rest of the book is taken up with the "games" or more properly described as scenarios.
This game is primarily a competitive story telling game where each player, in order adds a sentence to an ever-expanding story, with the goal of touching upon all the plot devices, cliches and motifs common in a genre. For example, were one to play a Star Trek scenario (one doesn't exist), the fellow wearing the red shirt would try their hardest to be the first to die, thus achieving a goal while the others try to prevent this. Likewise the player playing William Shatner would try to get as romantically entangled with as many exotic alien females wearing silver lingerie as possible. By performing as many of these elements as possible while denying them to others, one acquires enough points to win.
The Narrative Cage Match System
The Narrative Cage Match is a rule system where conflict is resolved by storytelling and a bidding process, with the highest bidder winning the right to alter the storyline within certain criteria.
Play would begin in a scenario by the starting player (determined by the group in some fashion) starts by saying aloud a sentence to the group, narrating what is occurring based upon the "Opening Scene" introduced at the beginning of the scenario. This sentence should include the name of that player's protagonist and serve in some small way as an introduction to the others regarding that character - more detail on the character will be brought out as the story continues. Likewise, play continues around the table as each mentions what actions their character takes as the story progresses.
Play continues with each person adding a sentence in sequence, although each player must mention their character in their sentence contribution and may name no more than one other player, thus keeping all the other players from falling victim to that player's whimsy. Thus claiming that “Murderin' Jack grabs an ax and hacks the rest of you into little bits” is imp
The conflict in the game results when one contests another sentence, known as a "challenge". This happens as the plot twists and turns and a player desires to undo a plot development, in which the challenge is carried out by:
1) Everyone rolls six six sided dice with the intent of getting as many identical rolls as possible, this roll is concealed.
2) Bidding begins with beads (of which everyone has 53: fifty normal ones, three specials).
3) The winner of the bid gets to choose which of the numbers (1-6) is their "lucky number", the number that they rolled the most times on their roll. All those who bid in the challenge then compare their die rolls with whoever who had the highest number of dice with that lucky number is the winner.
The winner can then let the original sentence remain, or they can alter the sentence, using the same PCs mentioned in the earlier sentence and at the very least, a noun or verb that was used in the sentence.
The three special beads can be used as well during bidding. A green bead automatically wins you the auction. A white bead allows you to select another player to win the auction. A black bead cancels another player's sentence, removing it from the developing storyline.
The story-game ends when there is only PC that survives or has any regular beads left. The winner is determined by going to the points section and allocating points to players for attaining their goals dictated by the genre. Some of these points are obvious, others subtle, but most are amusing.
The Scenarios
The Scenarios are well presented. The first one gives a substantial introduction and set up, describing the characters to be used in depth and the situation, as does the second story. The rest of the scenarios give a freer hand, providing less detail and allowing the players more freedom at the expense of less structure.
The first scenario "Grave and Watery" is an underwater scenario at a research station where something mysterious is hunting down the crew, your typical sci-fi horror film, "The Abyss" meets "Alien". The second, "Boardroom Blitz" is a soap opera revelation taking place at the reading of the will of one of America's most wealthy tycoons. "The Big Hole" is a crime story, where a group of criminals reunite to dig up their wealth they hid a decade ago. "Destroy All Buildings" is a Giant-Monsters-in-Tokyo rampage game with a few neat rules, and the titular "Pantheon" begins with "In the Beginning, there was nothing. Now what do you do?"
At the end of each scenario is a list of plot elements and the points. After playing the game, you consult the score provided for each scenario – some of the points are hysterical and well thought out, while for other games they’re a bit lack luster. In two cases the totaling of points was as enjoyable as playing the game. The winner is not necessarily the person who survives and makes it to the end, but rather the person who “touched” upon the salient genre motifs and cliches.
The Playtest
The first time we played three of us played "Grave and Watery". One player was the token African American, another was the corporate executive who knows more than he admits, and I played the ex-military type whose cracked.
The first game we decided to minimize the rule structure and in place of beads we used cards - Kings were green beads, Queens were white, Jacks were black and instead of allocating beads, each person played a card, highest card winning the auction. We figured that this would allow us to focus more on the story and less on the mechanics.
Play started off a bit slowly, but the players got into the feel of the game and within a few minutes everyone was fully enjoying themselves, so much so that people were reluctant to challenge, because everyone was curious to see what everyone else was planning to do. The genre elements in this game were obvious to all and as the game continued cliched elements were heaped high and the interest was more in seeing who could come up with more outlandish concepts than the others with little interest in challenging anybody.
The game resulted in the other two players being absorbed by the entity and my character escaping to the surface after battling the other two and the monster(s). Still, despite my character's survival, I lost the game in the long run because the other players were more successful in touching upon the salient goals for their characters.
In some ways the game was a remarkable success. We quickly got into the spirit of the game, really examined and drew upon our knowledge of the genre, collaborated on an amusing story with a number of twists, and enjoyed ourselves. Oddly, there was little interest in challenging or battling over details in the game.
The game was fairly short, and I can't recall having laughed more often during a game then during this time, so we considered the game a success.
Second Playtest
The next playtest was the "Destroy All Buildings" game with four players. This time we utilized the game system and with the slightly larger group and more diversity there was more conflict in the game and the mechanics were utilized a bit more. In this case a giant mutant cockroach and its government scientist engineer, a Japanese princess and her pet dragon, a little alien boy and his Squirtle Pokemon (a parody of Gamera I suppose) and a Japanese Defense Force Sergeant and a Iron Something Or Other all battled in Tokyo.
This game was enjoyable as well, although we found the steps required in the mechanics slowed the game down somewhat and broke the rhythm of the story telling. Sometimes after a fierce bidding battle, we had to rack our brains to recall exactly what the last sentence was.
What was startling in both games is that as amusing as the actual game play itself was the scoring of the game. Totaling up the points proved to be quite humorous and made the sting of defeat easier for the losers! However it made us wonder about the replayability of the game. It seems like knowing the point score might make the game a little less creative yet more competitive thus making the mechanics more important.
This game was enjoyed by everyone, and I was going to post this review... but then...
The Third Playtest
...we played “The Big Hole”. Five of us, as the rules suggested. This game though turned into a disaster. Perhaps we didn’t know the genre well enough, or maybe the concept was weak, but a group of five hardened and heavily armed criminals working together turned out to be a disaster. Implausible turn of events piled on top of implausible turn of events. One player made loopy out of character decisions that irked others, and the competition got cut throat quickly. People lost interest, and that was when I realized some of the limitations of the game. Success is greatly dependent upon the good will of the group, and as importantly, a shared vision of the game and the genre being enacted. At the end of the game, we counted up our measly points and realized how far we had deviated from what the author had in mind. One slightly rebellious or disinterested player can sabotage the whole affair. This seemed to sour my group on the game and I’ve been unable to get them to play the two last remaining games that neither of them were very keen on. This last play test had pretty much been a disaster.
Other Details
It’s a nice looking product. The cover art is nice and the interior art, while not numerous is very evocative. The layout of the game is excellent for the most part, with my only complaint being that the score sheet for "Destroy All Buildings" begins on the page opposite the introduction for that same scenario, and I was sorely tempted to look at the score sheet. In fact, the only frustrating thing about this game is owning it and not being able to look at the score sheets!
Conclusion
While not a game for everyone, this game really facilitates interactive and cooperative play, which is surprising considering the competitive nature of the game. The game also provides an opportunity for a critical examination of common genres. However, if your group isn’t the kind to experiment or is unfamiliar with most of the genres (monster on the loose, soap opera, crime caper, rampaging monsters, and theology) then this game have very little to offer.
Go to forum!
(Due to spamming, old forum discussions are no linked.)