Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PHATsakk43" data-source="post: 9664008" data-attributes="member: 7041071">Well, I feel rather miserable committing to reviewing Brozer now. Having read it, looking at it again and again has truly become a slog for me. I'll admit, there are some interesting bits and good concepts, but it is poorly organized. I also took a bit of a break due to recent <a href="https://youtu.be/YAXVDKtH4e0?si=Ilzx820gxI8SJEh2" target="_blank">Reading D&D Aloud podcast</a> by Ben Riggs which featured Jon Peterson which sheds some light on several of the points that Jeffro & Co are making about this whole endeavor. I ultimately didn’t change this writeup, but if it keeps going, it will be something that I will likely visit.So, on to the next chapter. Finally, this one seems promising, "Running Your First Faction Braunstein," which implies that we will finally be getting some meat on the bones we've been promised in the past bit. For those of you keeping track, this chapter starts on page 10 and runs through 15, making it, I believe, the longest single chapter in the pamphlet.Since this chapter is focused (somewhat, I'll get to that in a minute) on running the game, I'll try to minimize my comments regarding the tone of the writing to instead attempt to assess the rules, or guidelines, or suggestions, as they really don't end up being very explicit. I will though, point a few things that did stand out other than the game information.First, this chapter is written by Jeffro Jackson who has been mentioned several times in this thread. He seems to be closely associated with BrOSR stuff, so that isn't too odd. One thing that is reminiscent of the previous chapter is about all the first page is like the previous. Grandiose, self-congratulatory, and generally harkening back to a simpler, more glorious past, at least in gaming. That said, Mr. Jackson’s prose is far more pleasing than our previous author’s—a Mr. Mamola and “Contorted Trash”—it does have a tinge of superiority to it. Well, less superior than say, insightful I suppose. There is an almost Gygaxian voice in the writing. Mr. Jackson is showing you the way to join in his enlightened gaming, don’t you want to come along?As for quibbles, well, the only one that irked me particularly was Mr. Jackson’s repeated use of “Major” when referencing David Wesely, as in “Major Wesely”. I’m not sure if this was some sort of appeal to authority or that it gave Dave Wesely the aura of a 19th century British officer in a pith helmet running Braunsteins with his mates at the Cairo officers mess. Either way, as vet myself, it would bug the crap out of me to be referred to as “Machinist Mate 1st Class PHATsakk43” by someone today; the name is Nate, or Mr. PHATsakk43 if we’re being formal, I suppose. Either way, I found it cringy. Then again, I find a lot of this sort of stuff to be cringy, so that may be part of it. Also, you don’t need to thank me for my service, I volunteered and was paid well for what I did. Anyway, I’ve digressed enough, on to the, uh, the ‘rules’ as they are.This chapter finally does discuss what Brozer is, how to run it (sorta, we’ll get to that later), and the objectives. That most of the 6 pages are at least tentatively related to game play, there is still far more history (much of it rehashed), smug rhetoric, and general, conversational narrative between the audience and Jeffro for my preference. Ultimately, Jeffro seems to imply that you’re going to be winging this and what you get is a barebones overview. Which I suppose would be fine if this was an established game that we had a full grasp of and this is just a variant. It really isn’t, although it also isn’t as ‘revolutionary’ as the preceding hype implied either. You end up with something that is both underwhelming, underdeveloped, scant, and yet still remarkably drawn-out—primarily in areas that are not particularly helpful or pertinent.As for the gameplay, we are told in a tabulated list three modes of play. Each mode is described in roughly a paragraph and honestly, by the time you’ve read through this much discussion, you can probably figure these out on your own. Fundamental gameplay is the same regardless of method chosen. Basically, each player has opportunities to discuss directly with the GM what they are doing. The players also can do whatever they want amongst themselves. It is this latter action that supposedly sets the game apart, as while the characters are doing what they think are the best course of action, some of the information available to them may not be accurate. The GM is the ultimate arbiter, which creates a “fog of war” situation for everyone playing. Fundamentally, this is not a PvE game either; the reason the game is ‘fun’ is because the players are trying to increase their personal power vis-à-vis each other more so than solely in an absolute sense. While there isn’t anything necessarily stopping all the players simply joining together and running a dungeon, we’re told that this is wrong-play and instead we should encourage the players shanking each other. Apparently, cooperative play has been the reason no one enjoyed D&D for the past 50 years. Who knew?Method I is a freeform game where players meet with the GM to describe their individual actions, and the rest of the group is just doing whatever they want. Timekeeping is fluid, i.e. arbitrary and up to the GM, and ultimately all the plots and schemes are sorta thrown together at some point based on the fiat of the GM as to when and where things occur. The downsides are described as potential of players with less initiative to effectively be left out. The supposed benefits are that a game can be ran in a single session.Method II is more structured, in that each player writes down their actions which are turned into the GM, the GM then privately brings the players one by one to discuss while the rest are plotting and scheming amongst themselves. We’re told that this is fairer to players, but less so for the GM who now must do something for everyone. We’re also told that if a player isn’t available to play, we can’t run the game. Although since screwing each other over is the basis of play, I’m not sure why this is suddenly sacrosanct. Also, this isn’t particularly new. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)" target="_blank">This is just Diplomacy</a> with D&D rules for outcome determination.Method III is to attach the game to the real-world calendar. The idea is that everyone is just sending PMs to the GM constantly as they come up with ideas as well as amongst themselves. Supposedly this is the hardest for the GM but can scale to handle large numbers of players. The difficulty of playing ends up being upon the players themselves as well, so both players and GMs burn out. Well, Jeffro, you’re not really selling this one at all.After the methods are discussed, we’re given a bunch more narrative of play that in a normal set of game rules would be how the game works, but not with Brozer. We’re pretty much left in the dark regarding any of that and just given broad strokes about potential pitfalls (players not trying to shank each other) and an equally broad outline of plot and game development as it relates to running things. Basically, you’re told,” you’ll know when it’s time” cause all the private schemes of the players to erupt upon each other which will be something of a relief valve on the tension that has been building since last we had such a release. Basically, if this was a poker game, at some point, the GM has everyone stop betting and throw their cards on the table. That is pretty much the extent of gameplay advice we're given.</blockquote>

Verification