 Goto [ Index ] |
Note that it's a two player game: although there's a multiplayer option, this game is, essentially, about challenging another player head-to-head. But, just because you can't play it with your game group, don't dismiss it. This is a game to play after work, in the pub or at lunchtime.
The layout, by Fred Hicks, is clear and easy on the eye; and the artwork, by Joanna Barnum, captures the tone beautifully. I'm judging this from the PDF file.
The text
The book begins with a quick pass through the history and geography of the setting. It's interesting and inspiring, although perhaps overfond of adjectives and peculiar names: "The mages and Karakaan soldiers conquered most of the Berengad, with the exception of the tribes of Chel’qhur".
One paragraph stands out. It explains that the tribe's women "choose the men they want to breed with" and that some tribes "treat their man badly". It's jarring and it's not referred to again: indeed, it's later explained that Beast Hunter men and women are treated equally. So what's the intention? Perhaps it's intended to make the game less macho, more welcoming to women: but it reads as though someone's hijacked the text for political purposes.
The text is long and, although literately written, it's badly organised.
For example, the conflict system is explained before character creation. This is confusing: the text mentions "traits" and "resources" before explaining what they are.
Most strikingly, important rules are hard to find: for example, when does the Hunter fight the Beast? It turns out the Beast appears after the Challenger has spent all his points: but this rule is buried.
The text is overwritten: after all, it's 154 pages for a two-player game. It needs editing. Some sentences are unnecessary ("In order to play this game as a Hunter, you need to create a character") ; an entire section on Stakes seems superfluous; the author often uses a paragraph where a sentence would have sufficed. All this makes reading the text a chore and, during play, makes finding rules difficult.
It's not unreadable. But it's a complex ruleset, which isn't well explained. More summaries, examples and checklists would help. To understand it, I needed to read it three times, while taking notes.
An overview of the rules
One player is the Hunter, who goes on the adventure; the other is the GM-like Challenger. The Challenger has a stack of Adversity Points to spend on monsters, obstacles and so on. When they're spent, the Hunter battles the Beast itself.
The game begins and ends with the "salute": a special handshake. This, explains the text, is an indication of respect.
On the journey, the Hunter battles physical, mental and social obstacles. The rules for combating these are complex. Firstly, there's a three-stage negotiation process to define the conflict. Then players take turns, rolling dice to gain advantage, then converting that advantage into a strike.
During the conflict, many optional rules can enter play: the Challenger can offer the Hunter an advantage, instead of rolling dice for advantage; both players can affect damage using weapons and armour; and the Challenger is encouraged to "give" (forfeit the conflict) if the Hunter has particularly good ideas.
Beast Hunters in play
I played Beast Hunters with Alex, after work, in a pub. The atmosphere suited the game: relaxed, low-key, with drinks. Alex was the Hunter, I was the Challenger.
We began with character creation. It was fun: traits included "My father's axe", "Healing broth", "The Hatehawks' blood is in my veins" (we'd decide what Hatehawks were later).
Character creation wasn't all easy. The rules insist you classify Traits as Physical, Mental and Social and as Offensive or Defensive. But what's a Mental Defensive Trait? We settled for Unrelenting Focus, but that could, as easily, have been offensive. And many of Alex's traits (such as "I sing to drive away fear") could have been either Social or Mental.
And then the salute. We shook hands. It felt weird. Indeed, we didn't understand the salute: should we "salute out" of the game if, for example, Alex went to buy a drink?
The setting, we quickly realised, was fantastic to play in: all slaughter and spears and butchering and tribal spirits. Exciting and inspiring.
Alex's first challenge was social: his tribe threw a farewell feast, before his hunt, and threw insults at him. We went through the pre-conflict negotiation process, although it felt perfunctory: we knew what the conflict was about and I had no questions to ask Alex about it.
And we rolled dice, back and forth. It was fun: he threw insults and gained an advantage; I threw some back. However, it got repetitive and I "gave" to end the conflict.
Then Alex's hunter started on the hunt. I set a mental challenge: on a mountaintop, with the Hatehawks gathering, filling his mind with fear. Again, we did the pre-conflict negotiating, but it felt perfunctory. Again, we rolled dice: and, again, it was fun at first. However, this mental conflict seemed difficult: there's only so many ways to describe fear building. Eventually, again, it got repetitive and I gave.
And so it carried on: conflict after conflict. Many of these were fun: a social conflict against travelling priests; a bloody battle with a family in a villa. Superb, inspiring stuff.
As the game progressed, it seemed strange that social, mental and physical conflicts were treated as equal. To us, the physical conflicts seemed most fun: after all, it's a game about hunting. Why were social and mental conflicts given equal prominence? Mental conflicts were especially difficult: descriptions of hard stares and concentration got boring quickly.
Also, many conflicts seemed repetitive and prolonged. In the combat rules, you build up an advantage, then convert it to a strike. But there's only so many ways you can describe building up an advantage: in physical combats, we kept repeating "I move to the higher ground" and "I try to corner you".
By the end, the pre-conflict negotiation was a chore: if we played again, we'd ignore this rule.
We enjoyed the game, which lasted two and a half hours. We nearly forgot to salute (shake hands) at the end: it didn't seem important.
Conclusion
There's a great game in Beast Hunters, with a superb, inspiring setting. As yet, it doesn't feel fully realised: the ruleset feels in need of playtesting and streamlining. Some rules seem unnecessary (the salute, the pre-conflict negotiation); some need tweaking (the equal emphasis on physical, mental and social conflicts).
The text is overwritten and ill-organised, making it difficult to understand a complex system.
However, there are many positives: it's a good-looking book; the tribal aspect is evocative and inspiring; you won't have trouble thinking up adventures; you'll easily discard the rules you don't need; and it's one of the few two-player games on the market. If that attracts you, Beast Hunters is worth a try.
Help support RPGnet by purchasing this item through DriveThruRPG.
