Antrum is a game that is delightfully weird. The setting is evocative and the rules text manages to be atmospheric while still being easy to understand. The game is inspired by a number of classic games in the map-making, faction-driven genre (The Quiet Year, Microscope, Kingdom) but manages to stand on its own legs. I think it is a promising game and one that is worth developing if you feel like continuing to work on it, so in the interest of that, I would like to offer some (hopefully constructive) pieces of criticism. Feel free to disregard any of this, of course, and as I said, I think it a fine game!
It’s interesting to me that the game sets out to be clearly competitive, pitting the factions and players against each other, even if the caveat is there that you are playing to create an interesting story. One part of this that I am curious about, as I have not had the chance to play the game yet, is how voting for the Fabulist would work. I like that it’s done as a ritual, but I am a little bit worried about the fact that you are voting for an aspect of player skill. I think with most groups this will probably not be a problem, but playing with people you don’t know so well, or players who are new to narrative games, or more introverted or less verbal players, there is a small risk of the voting being a bit uncomfortable for some.
I like the faction attributes, they are amazingly on theme, and the way they are assigned, but they could maybe be more clearly tied to different actions? On the other hand, having it more loosely defined by what fits best gives a lot of narrative freedom, so I’m not sure. But it will require that players are on the same page about what stat goes with what described action.
Thank you for this entry, I really enjoyed it! I also want to say that I really liked the presentation: the art, layout, quotes and text worked harmoniously together in this strange and fascinating bone world! :-)