Members
Review of Breaking the Ice


Goto [ Index ]
Breaking the Ice is “A Game about Love, for Two.” It’s an “indie” game, and author Emily Care Boss thanks the Forge community and several well-known Forgites specifically, so you can guess that it’s not a conventional RPG. And some people will say it’s not “really” a roleplaying game at all. I’ll leave that debate for the forums. But you should know going in that this doesn’t bear much resemblance to D&D or Exalted. The game doesn’t establish how strong (or how good looking) a character is, there are no combat rules (and no combats), and the idea of supplements or splatbooks doesn’t make much sense.

The game is intended to encourage the players to describe the first three “dates” of a couple in a lot of detail. Dice are rolled to determine the level of attraction and compatibility between the two characters, and after the three dates are completed, the players consider the results and talk about whether they think the fledgling relationship will survive.

One quick note: I’m basing this review on reading the rules and playing once. Other than downloading a character sheet, I haven’t looked at any online support material (actual play reports, the creator’s Forge page, etc.), so some of the questions and issues I had may be cleared up somewhere else. I’m just going off the game rules that I have.

The Book
This is a small, 38-page paperback held together by staples. The cover is color, the interior is B&W. It includes a table of contents and a page-referencing “road map to play” to help you find your way around. The occasional illustrations are a combination of clip art and somewhat cartoony pictures of mildly cross-dressing players. The artwork is appropriate, but not necessarily a strong selling point. Layout and editing are professional, and the writing is clear.

The Game
This is a game for two players with no GM. The players together decide on what kind of romance story they want to tell (which includes picking a genre like “romantic comedy” and a rating to establish to what extent sex will have a presence in the game) and then each makes a character. A key concept of the game is the “Switch”: the players identify some way in which they are different (gender, sexual orientation, politics, race, whatever) and then they each play a character who is like the other player in that way. For many people playing this game, the most obvious Switch will be playing the other sex, and the running example in the rules does this (and so did we in our playtest).

Once the Switch is made, each player chooses a favorite color for their character and the two players together build a word web off of that color. This word web is then used as the basis for establishing who the character is and defining starting Traits. Traits are descriptions of things about the character: job, hobbies, personal connections, characteristics, etc. They are simply listed and do not require a numerical rating. Finally each character needs a Conflict: something that will potentially hinder the dates. The last item listed in preparation is choosing a setting, which seems like it should come earlier.

During the actual game play, the players will put the characters through three dates. (A “date” might not be a formal date, depending on genre and setting, but is some occasion where the two characters spend time together getting to know each other.) Each date consists of alternating turns for the two players, with four to six total turns per date. On her turn, the “Active Player” describes what’s happening, trying to earn dice from the other player (the “Guide”). Dice are rewarded for defined but open-to-interpretation conditions like “Invoking trait” or “Creative or true to life narration.” There are several different kinds of dice: attraction dice, bonus dice, conflict dice, compatibility dice, and some of them can be re-rolled and some can’t. (You earn the re-rolls by further narration.) So the game is designed to reward, encourage, and require narration by making that the way you get dice to roll. As the active player narrates, the guide makes suggestions and decides when dice have been earned.

The dice are d6s: every 5 or 6 is a success. With 3 successes you can temporarily increase the “attraction level” by one. With 4 successes you can create a new compatibility. Either way, you’re building up more dice to use in future scenes, so there’s a certain momentum effect: if the two start to hit it off, then they’ll tend to build.

After the active player runs out of dice to roll or has bought an attraction level or a compatibility, the players switch roles and the other player takes over narration and tries to earn dice and roll successes.

Dates end after four to six turns, although the rules don’t make it clear exactly when. Apparently the players just decide when the date is over. Between dates the attraction level may drop (“out of sight, out of mind”), but additional narration can earn re-rolls there too. The second and third dates work like the first one, but probably with more dice available. After the third date the players take stock of the relationship and make their predictions about whether the relationship will survive.

Reading the rules I had no trouble understanding what to do, but sometimes I had trouble understanding why things worked the way they did. I’m a big-picture person, and I wished for a little more explanation of the theory behind the whole game. I understood that the dice came from different sources, but I didn’t instantly understand why. Still, I got it and was ready to give it a try.

The Playtest
Generally the playtest went smoothly. My partner and I both had fun and would play the game again, although it wasn’t such a big hit that we’re putting it at the top of our list of entertainments. I found the word webs and character creation to be the most inspired part of the game: it really allowed us to quickly create some interesting characters without just having to invent everything whole-cloth. It almost gives a random element to the game that helps to put some life into it. I didn’t set out to create a marketing major who worked at a juice bar, but that’s who I ended up with.

The dates were a little awkward at first as we got used to the mechanics, but the need to earn those dice did drive narration. And that’s when I started to figure out that the reason for all these different kinds of dice is to drive different kinds of narration. If you want to just describe your character being perfect and saying all the right things, fine, but you won’t be able to earn enough dice to have a realistic chance of building anything. So you have to invoke your conflict for three easy dice, and do some negative narration to earn the re-rolls.

What confused us about this was that a couple of times our characters doing stupid things or being (usually unintentionally) hurtful would actually end up increasing attraction or building a compatibility. I understand that the mechanism helps to encourage balanced and dramatic narration, but it seems a little odd.

At first we found it a strain to get enough dice to make progress, but eventually the success momentum started to kick in, and by the third date I wouldn’t even try to get all the dice possible. At that point I wondered whether it was “legal” to buy more than one level of attraction or compatibility on a single turn, if you had enough successes to do so. I think it’s prohibited, but that wasn’t quite as explicit as I would have liked. In all, though, the game worked, and we created a story of two people getting past some early mistakes to having a reasonable chance of staying together.

It’s worth noting, briefly, that playing the game did not immediately put us both “in the mood,” and we didn’t end up kissing uncontrollably or anything. There were some sweet and romantic moments in our story, but it wasn’t an intense romantic experience. That may have been because it was a first time, or because we choose to keep it light, or because these two characters didn’t hit it off explosively. So other games might have a different emotional impact.

Ratings and Selling Points
I’m giving the game a solid 3 for style. It’s clean and neat, and if the artwork isn’t amazing, it also doesn’t detract.

For substance, I’m going to 4 to reflect that this game provides just what it promises, and it fills a niche that’s worth filling. There aren’t a lot of games out there that deal with romance, and I can’t think of any RPGs designed to be for two players without one having to be the GM. And I still love the word web as a basis for character creation.

Also I think the game deserves bonus points for the excellent “Other Ways to Play” section. This section includes suggestions for handling more than two people, deepening play, and playing in more exotic settings and genres (historical romance, medieval fantasy romance, etc.) What sets this apart from some other games is that the suggestions given are actually specific and helpful. In its three brief pages, this section provides much more than just “Here are some ideas, see if you can run with them.” As a result, the versatility and replayability of the game are increased greatly.

Finally a note on price: the game lists for $14, but the additional $5 shipping can seem like a lot. So not the Indie Press Revolution offers free shipping on orders over $25. Bundle it with Polaris or Don’t Rest Your Head or something and it’s a bargain again. Or maybe, like me, you can get lucky and find it at your FLGS for $12.

PDF Store: Buy This Item from DriveThruRPG

Help support RPGnet by purchasing this item through DriveThruRPG.


Recent Forum Posts
Post TitleAuthorDate
Re: [RPG]: Breaking the Ice, reviewed by azrianni (3/4)LordXAugust 21, 2006 [ 10:29 am ]
Re: [RPG]: Breaking the Ice, reviewed by azrianni (3/4)Civil SavageAugust 21, 2006 [ 09:35 am ]
Re: [RPG]: Breaking the Ice, reviewed by azrianni (3/4)BigJackBrassAugust 21, 2006 [ 06:12 am ]

Copyright © 1996-2013 Skotos Tech, Inc. & individual authors, All Rights Reserved
Compilation copyright © 1996-2013 Skotos Tech, Inc.
RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech, Inc., all rights reserved.