BROKEN, by: Ian Burton-Oakes (review)

[EBlair]

So, I read and played this game. Here are my thoughts, in out-of-joint format: (Ian, if you want more lucid commentary, just let me know, and I will hammer and glue my thoughts into more coherent context and form)

Ta,
Eric

Short Version:
The thing is that you can market. Your blurb text caught me and made me download your game first. Your text in the first two pages was a bit confusing, as in, lacking-in-concreteness, which is why the first few comments are quick and confused, but it quickly hammers my confusion into shape by the time it begins with the character creation. Seriously, I love the premise, I even like the division of paths for character choices. However, the examples of powers need to be expanded (or eliminated, I didn’t need them. As an experienced roleplayer, I get the scaling difficulty and limitations set forth by the nature of the paths we are walking in your game). The system just plain doesn’t work for me. Perhaps it is because it comes off as nuanced, but really is just a simple shaded-success rate pool. Also, consider bounding the dice pool to a max of five (+ three for lending, as explained below). Lots of rolling makes people (err, me) edgy.

This game is a good, solid beginning, but I don’t think it is quite there yet. You have a strong, promising premise, a good foundation for characters, and a nifty setting. Now, you need to craft a system and reward system that matches this cool, and feeds the dramatic tension to keep the story and game flowing. Add risk, add more “cool”, and add more stake. It is there to be had, a good game is definitely there.

Long Version (as in, the bits I jotted down as I played and read the game, as I read them and played them, in that order)
It was unclear, at the outset, if being a bounder was an option in the game.

It was also unclear which outcome (transformation, collapse, and stagnation) I would want. Well, to be honest, as an anti-activist person, mine own self, I have little desire to change anything for anyone, at any given moment (excepting myself). However, as the game did seem to push for some sort of anarchic transition for those poor sods left behind in the glorious revolution, I was willing to give it a go.

I am required to have “at least one connection to another player”. What is the downside to having a connection to every player? Further, as it seems only beneficial to have many many connections, consider stating that the first connection is free, and that further connectivity would require a permanent reduction of max pool-size by 1 per further connection.

The actions to “make a case” seem to be merely the standard “take an action” routine for a game. Perhaps if the character still lost a point on a rejected case, there would be some risk to making a “pushing the limit” case, thus wanting the characters to play somewhat conservatively, or, at the least, trying to find the line. Right now, it seemed a long explanation for a game that is largely going to be seen and received by people who “get roleplaying”.

The rolling mechanic is LARGE pools at the beginning. The percentage basis of success and failure seems an unnecessary complication. Consider revising to +X successes is fullest extent of success and -X successes is fullest extent of failure (or see end, “System notes”).

When would another player issue a dispute? In our game, it never really occurred to any of us that it might be a wise idea. Further, when would I not consent to a lending character’s participation? Consider revising to “a player lending pool to augment another’s action through connection requires the lending player to adjust the result in some manner”. For the truck action in the example, perhaps the augmentation would also have the truck dig its way into the building’s corner, preventing the truck from being used as a means of locomotion and also beginning to erode the integrity of the building structure, which could have dire potential upon complete success for the one still inside that the characters are presumably attempting to protect. In this manner, the aid comes with a cost, and the decision to accept or deny the action is very real. Also, consider revising the lent pool to only some amount of pool increase (let us say 2 or 3 for now). In the revised mechanics, the constant 3 effect would force characters to work together in the later part of jags, as their pools were too low to take effective action themselves.

The whole ascent, descent, stagnation thing. What? I think the game would incredibly benefit from fleshing-out this area. What is a reasonable example of a well-being condition, and a refresh condition?

Playtest notes: I ran a quick one-through with only one session being played and let me tell you: one guy is path of humanity, and uses himself largely in the manner of “roadblock” for most situations (as he is immune to damage). The path of steel character tended to just aid him, rushing about and ruining the opposition’s day through shattering and shoving bits of metal about. He would also lend his pool to the roadblock should he require it, at times (as the humanity guy is made of metal and glass, thus the path of steel guy would “hold him steady”, or add extra oomph to a strike and such). The path of law guy rushed in and threw everything he had into giving the core NPC an obsession to resist the laws of man and sway the underground to rise-up. (The scenario was more-or-less a quick “this guy could grow-up and be a great leader of man, showing them that life does not need to be bounded by paper and plastic and rules upon rules”, but in his youth, he sold drugs, stole cars, did the whole “badass youth” bit. A rival gang was coming to execute him and the characters had to prevent him from dying and keep him on the right path).

Let me tell you, in our game, the characters absolutely ran over the opposition. At first, the characters were more-or-less “passive resistance”, trying to change the bad guys’ minds, jam their weapons, and the like. By the second roll, the path of humanity guy said “fuck this” and started slaughtering them wholesale. The path of steel guy helped. The path of law guy flitted off to instill the urge in the subject. Voila.

After reading the rules, someone pointed out that having about 3 connections to each character was optimal, and to have one covering physical, mental, and social interactions. That way, the whole lending through the network idea was constantly occurring. I told him that it wasn’t against the rules, but that deliberately sabotaging the intent of the game seemed a bit low-brow. In any event, I limited connections to merely one per character, just to keep things sane. It was still a bit nutty.

I realize this was a half-baked one scenario endeavor that I cooked-up to “make it go”, but the overall system was a bit too much “I am a god here, ye mortals rush about in fear”. There was no sense of dramatic tension or risk, or even necessarily a driving urge. When I was asked, “Why do I care what happens to Lil Tommy (the subject)?” My only possible reply was, “Because that is the game.”

I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but, there is no seeming penalty. I mean, this whole ascent/descent thing is there, but so what? I am guessing ascent is better than descent? I am guessing that stagnation is bad? I mean, why does the path of humanity character care about any of this? He seems to be indestructible, immortal, and what-not; so why not just traipse off into the sunset and say, “piss-off”? I am further guessing that whichever point (ascent, descent, and stagnation) I have the most of equals the result of my character at the end. If you want this game to an impact, the reward has to equal the risk. I realize that, to some degree, this may have occurred, as my players felt little in the way of risk and also little in the way of reward, but still, I think if you could tweak the system to feed dramatic tension, then your game would shoot-off like a rocket.

System notes: It is more-or-less just a part of me that does not enjoy partial success and partial failure charts, but why not say that there is X amount that equals success (let us say 2), and the player may expend 2 dice from his pool to narrate his own success or failure? Change the pool from merely equaling remaining pool, to equaling 5 or the remaining pool (whichever is lower). Have lending by a connection add 2 or 3 to the pool, always, and call it a day? The reason I say this is because my NPCs were constantly expending their own pool in resistance to the characters to increase the success rate by 2. I realize this is not intended in the rules, but I didn’t want to drop a crapload of dice and tally bits up to have someone else drop a crapload of dice to tally bits up, so I winged it and constantly said that the enemy seems to be rolling two successes more than the action would normally require. So, instead, have NPCs expend 1 point to increase the needed successes by 1, and, if they are also broken ones, they may take actions on their own, just as a normal PC would. Otherwise, the only thing an NPC can be is merely “the other side of failure”, meaning that their presence adds consequence to failure, rather than taking an action. I haven’t tested this version of the system out, yet, but I think it would run a bit more smoothly.

[Isbo]

[Isbo]

You really set me to thinking about what exactly I am up to--I appreciate it. I'll toss out a few thoughts in a similarly here and there format--let me know what you think of them. I start with a partial and bastardized Power 19 style 'answers' and then move onto to propose ideas that might bring things more in line with those ideas.

Premise: Players must rapidly try to solve probelms--demonstrating through their actions that they appreciate the 'underlying' structure of the situation into which they have been thrust. At the conclusion of the game, their fate is determined by their actions. Those players who misconstrue the situation descend, finding themselves trapped in a narrower and narrower world of awareness. Those who clearly construe the situation ascend into a higher level of awareness. Those who seem to be carried along by the situation without altering it one way or another remain stuck at the level they are at. I want the judgement to fall on the whole group, so perhaps each player could contribute or hinder that in different ways. Sort of like the old plot of breaking out of jail but ending up chained to your fellow escapee--you sink or swim together.

What do players do? First and foremost, they try to figure things out with the understanding that mere understanding will not gain them any benefits. In order to accumulate points towards ascension, they must act in a way that demonstrates their appreciation for the situation.

What does the judge do? The judge, well, judges whether the players have understood the situation. S/he stands in for the Law. S/he establishes the refresh conditions which can only be achieved by understanding the situation and acting accordingly.

Ideas for how to make mechanics work: First, cut back on resource pools, which makes each session more challenging and demands the players cooperate more effectively.

Second, make most rolls opposed--this strips away some of the powers/fixed successes issue and makes challenges in the game more fluid--so that the leader of a squad could 'oppose' a thrown truck with strategy ('scatter!' 'the door's blocked, get out the back door') or oppose a driving passion with dedication ("Me and my squad first, all other interests secondary')--this also gives more meat to the 'making the case' talk--player can counter judge's assertion that the driving passion could play on his love for his squad, making it harder to resist, etc.

Third, a big one: Some extended examples of play.

Fourth, remove 'goody two shoes' assumptions--i.e. ascension could occur when characters do 'bad' things so long as those bad actions reflect an underlying understanding of the situation. Also, 'good' actions could lead to descent if they don't reveal understanding of situation.

Fifth, consider all three 'end situations' as 'opening situations' for a future campaign. Ascended characters face more challenges, improved resource pool, descended lose resources, face lesser challenges?

Sixth, clarify the 'making the case' talk--part of it is for color (Law, etc) but part of it also facilitates how the judge adjudicates 'understanding' the situation. The same two acts could be ascent or descent directed depending on the intent the player provides when making their case.

[Isbo]

Oh one more question, Eric:

You mentioned that it was unclear at first whether a bounded character would be an option. Do you think it would be more interesting if they were an option? I could imagine a 'bounded' player taking on a new character each session, with each jag, with that character always being connected to one or more members of the party. That might even be worked more rigorously into the session play--the bounded character always being key to understanding the 'underlying' action of the Law.

It might also help solve the "why care for lil timmy" issue--the players have a metagame rationale for interacting with 'lil timmy' and lil timmy himself will be quite active.

Re: more opposed rolls mentioned above--one way to think about that is as the 'Law' opposing the broken by way of the challenges--so it heightens the judge-player dichotomy, making the judge even more of a stand in for the law. Almost as if the judge is the player of a special sort of high-powered character rather than just a GM 'running the game.'

[EBlair]

[EBlair]

[Isbo]

[EBlair]

[Isbo]