The Last Night of Alexisgrad, by Milo van Mesdag
This one appealed to me greatly in concept. A dramatic political/military thriller set during a single, pivotal night, for two players? Oh yeah! I would have been all over this on the first day of the comp, were it not for the fact that it took a while to wrangle a partner.
My expectations were high, and I am pleased to say that the writing did not disappoint. The author succeeds in many things at once: evoking the chaotic and desperate flavor of an already-battered city on the verge of collapse; showing the brutal calculus of conflict in each of the protagonists’ minds as they consider how to give themselves the greatest advantage; and contextualizing it all with just enough worldbuilding to intrigue but not distract from the action.
The game design/choice structure didn’t scratch my itch quite as much, because there’s not a whole lot of room for players to maneuver.
More spoilery musings for the initiated:
In the asymmetrical conflict between the General and the Dictator, it is immediately obvious that the former is at a great advantage. Naturally I picked the Dictator for my first playthrough, because I love a good underdog story. When I died an especially ignoble death, I assumed it was because I had made poor choices, or my buddy had made very good ones. I was eager to try again.
We enjoyed the game enough to replay it many times, switching roles regularly. As we did, the initial thrill of competition wore off and an unfortunate realization emerged. Each character has very few choices that affect their fates. All of the maneuvering prior to the final confrontation has no real consequence beyond affecting the flavor of what happens along the way. What it all comes down to, in determining what happens to our protagonists, is: will the General give the Dictator an opportunity to negotiate? What will the Dictator ask for in return for capitulation? And will the General accept it or just kill her instead?
I feel that the game design is at cross-purposes with the way in which my buddy and I approached the game. We wanted and expected to compete against each other, to test our strategies in the hope of gaining an upper hand. In fact, there’s not much room for that when the Dictator’s fate always comes down to whether or not the General decides to be generous.
There’s a limit to how much I can criticize the game on this point, of course. The blurb does clearly warn:
Both have little doubt that the city of Alexisgrad will fall tonight. The question that both must ask is how it will fall.
We probably should have paid more attention to this, rather than latching so hard onto the idea that the two-player structure encourages competition. To get the most out of The Last Night of Alexisgrad, one must be less concerned with winning than with roleplaying the journey.
I do think, though, that the payoff would have been greater if there had been an epilogue to show non-immediate results of some of the players’ decisions. It’s mentioned a few times that the General has to think not only about taking Alexisgrad, but about holding it and ensuring that it becomes a stable and productive part of the Kingdom. If we could get some final confirmation of how well this comes to pass depending on the players’ choices, it would provide a stronger sense of agency to the players and a stronger through line for the story.