1. Gorm has no apparent goals and can't influence anything in the game, can't be influenced by anything in the game. Very few people would enjoy watching a game played by others and calling the color commentary.

2. Imelda has no apparent goal. She could be avoiding Bob's advances, or helping Bob's advances, but the game doesn't allow her to intentionally influence things either way.

3. There's no incentive to use the full game board. If Bob is smart, he won't go near the bathroom or the other offices. He'll spend his time bouncing around those Emboldening Spaces. Why bother having any of those other spaces available during the game?

4. More background info than necessary. Do we need to know that Imelda's husband was killed by a defective rowing machine?

5. "Universal" game vs. quite specific. Is a game less playable because it limits you to one or two characters, a specific physical location, specific relationships between the characters built into the game? Is a game more playable if it leaves all of these open for the players to choose? Is there a happy middle-ground?

6. Why bother having a playing piece if you're never allowed to move it? (Answer: color)

7. "Maybe if it was implied that Imelda and Gorm have an objective other than staying in-character, and there was some arcane point-scoring mechanism with a few charts, their uselessness could be disguised without changing the fundamental nature of their roles." - Rallan from The Forge forum >> Indie Game Design discussion.

Read the full discussion of ML4U on The Forge forum, where I get all defensive when people tell me things like these above. (You'll have to register there before adding to the discussion.) Or email your comments to deidzoeb13@yahoo.com.