This is refreshing to see because you lead with emphasizing the importance of in person gaming. If anything I would say you devote too much of the article to online clubhouses. I have been running a very large in person AD&D game for several years. It's hovered between 8 and 12 players and is currently at 10. One of my beef's with the BrOSR culture is that it's too much an online phenomenon, and comes with all the downsides of highly online cultures, but this is a sign of growth. Kudos to you.
Very interesting! I’m keen to delve into this style of play. I had an idea to do a Mothership game as PBP with players all playing as competing factions in a xenoarchaeological expedition. Lots of great resources to mine in this post.
There are still things my conventional-mind is asking.
In a conventional game, as you said, the Game-Master is pushed into the role of a storyteller rather than referee. And I think that is where a lot of GM burnout comes from.
In a conventional game, the players traverse the world and the GM is expected to come up with stories (in modern D&D) or situations (In OSR games) which the players then interact with.
That is where the tension and meat of the game is derived.
In a Braunstein, if I understand it aright, the tension and stories come primarily from the player's interactions with each other.
So if a player enters a new area and encounters say, a dozen Bandits via a random encounter table procedure, what happens next?
The player may decide to talk to, pay off, flee from or fight the Bandits. Does the Referee resolve the interaction as a single roll, schedule it as an RP session or resolve it with an impartial decision?
Or does the Referee use each of these options as necessary?
I know you are playing in Voidstein where there is Solitaire play, but I feel this whole thing is better framed in terms of Dungeons and Dragons.
Some people will have participants resolve their own encounters. You have the AD&D rule books after all, and they have tables in them, and rules for encounters. Everyone has the rules of the game, and the clubhouse has to be high trust. It doesn’t depend on the DM.
You have just as much ability as the referee to adjudicate circumstances, and some particular thing in the Braunstein does not lock or limit play, it must simply occur 1:1 real to game time.
In my opinion, the correct way to adjudicate an encounter whether you are the campaign manager, a referee or a player conducting the procedures solo, is to use abductive reasoning informed by Appendix N. Originality should not be the goal. Reading Appendix N works, then considering if anything left open what should naturally arise
Use the game procedures strictly by the text where they are closed. Use abductive reasoning informed by Appendix N when they are open.
How it gets resolved and when doesn’t actually matter as long as time moves 1:1 with the real world. You may have an evening available to move your armies and man’s on the board and resolve your encounters in advance of a joint battle with another patron ally.
You could easily do this right after you publish your orders to the campaign manager or Referee. The Referee only needs to intervene if there is either a quality assurance problem (you are doing it wrong) or if there’s an element in the fog of war (another player is doing something and you intersected with them in some way.)
This can be done between sessions of play, sometimes called a Type 2 Braunstein, or it could be done at anytime Type 3, or it could be done once a week where all these things are resolved, and then the rest of the campaign revolves around that resolution, called a Type IV Braunstein or non-stop Braunstein.
If it’s significant and requires a Wargame battle, adventure session or Braunstein session (Type 1) the Referee or Campaign Manager might “Docket” a session to resolve the event, freezing the assets in question until it’s resolved.
Really, you just play Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D) and you try to use all the rules. You track time 1:1 when not on an adventure and between sessions of play characters have total autonomy including even PVP. Players play the most important aspects on the board instead of the DM (patrons), and you toss out all of the orthodoxy of RPGs which forms around the “get-along-gang” because those things are no longer required. That’s about it.
I like how someone finally admitted a chatroom "Braunstein" isn't the same thing as a real one. Bravo. I also find it immensely entertaining how short these campaigns are and how you essentially left the real life with friends kind as a footnote.
This is refreshing to see because you lead with emphasizing the importance of in person gaming. If anything I would say you devote too much of the article to online clubhouses. I have been running a very large in person AD&D game for several years. It's hovered between 8 and 12 players and is currently at 10. One of my beef's with the BrOSR culture is that it's too much an online phenomenon, and comes with all the downsides of highly online cultures, but this is a sign of growth. Kudos to you.
Wonderful write up! I’m glad you jumped in with both feet. It’s good to call you a Bro.
The best thing about the AI reading voice?
It always pronounces Braunstein properly!*
(*Well..., whenever it's spelled properly at least...)
[Great advice too. Thank you!]
Very interesting! I’m keen to delve into this style of play. I had an idea to do a Mothership game as PBP with players all playing as competing factions in a xenoarchaeological expedition. Lots of great resources to mine in this post.
Sounds great!
There are still things my conventional-mind is asking.
In a conventional game, as you said, the Game-Master is pushed into the role of a storyteller rather than referee. And I think that is where a lot of GM burnout comes from.
In a conventional game, the players traverse the world and the GM is expected to come up with stories (in modern D&D) or situations (In OSR games) which the players then interact with.
That is where the tension and meat of the game is derived.
In a Braunstein, if I understand it aright, the tension and stories come primarily from the player's interactions with each other.
So if a player enters a new area and encounters say, a dozen Bandits via a random encounter table procedure, what happens next?
The player may decide to talk to, pay off, flee from or fight the Bandits. Does the Referee resolve the interaction as a single roll, schedule it as an RP session or resolve it with an impartial decision?
Or does the Referee use each of these options as necessary?
I know you are playing in Voidstein where there is Solitaire play, but I feel this whole thing is better framed in terms of Dungeons and Dragons.
Some people will have participants resolve their own encounters. You have the AD&D rule books after all, and they have tables in them, and rules for encounters. Everyone has the rules of the game, and the clubhouse has to be high trust. It doesn’t depend on the DM.
You have just as much ability as the referee to adjudicate circumstances, and some particular thing in the Braunstein does not lock or limit play, it must simply occur 1:1 real to game time.
In my opinion, the correct way to adjudicate an encounter whether you are the campaign manager, a referee or a player conducting the procedures solo, is to use abductive reasoning informed by Appendix N. Originality should not be the goal. Reading Appendix N works, then considering if anything left open what should naturally arise
Use the game procedures strictly by the text where they are closed. Use abductive reasoning informed by Appendix N when they are open.
How it gets resolved and when doesn’t actually matter as long as time moves 1:1 with the real world. You may have an evening available to move your armies and man’s on the board and resolve your encounters in advance of a joint battle with another patron ally.
You could easily do this right after you publish your orders to the campaign manager or Referee. The Referee only needs to intervene if there is either a quality assurance problem (you are doing it wrong) or if there’s an element in the fog of war (another player is doing something and you intersected with them in some way.)
This can be done between sessions of play, sometimes called a Type 2 Braunstein, or it could be done at anytime Type 3, or it could be done once a week where all these things are resolved, and then the rest of the campaign revolves around that resolution, called a Type IV Braunstein or non-stop Braunstein.
If it’s significant and requires a Wargame battle, adventure session or Braunstein session (Type 1) the Referee or Campaign Manager might “Docket” a session to resolve the event, freezing the assets in question until it’s resolved.
Really, you just play Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D) and you try to use all the rules. You track time 1:1 when not on an adventure and between sessions of play characters have total autonomy including even PVP. Players play the most important aspects on the board instead of the DM (patrons), and you toss out all of the orthodoxy of RPGs which forms around the “get-along-gang” because those things are no longer required. That’s about it.
Thank you, that answers a lot of my questions.
I am used to taking the rules I want from a game and discarding what i dont want or see as 'flawed'.
But in these kinds of games, I see how vital it is that everyone plays by the rules, so everyone is on the same page.
This is a really good video that describes things conceptually by Jon Mollison. There are different ways to “skin the cat”.
https://youtu.be/JIEW2r6deXs?is=OaAANfC46k_HHXx2
I like how someone finally admitted a chatroom "Braunstein" isn't the same thing as a real one. Bravo. I also find it immensely entertaining how short these campaigns are and how you essentially left the real life with friends kind as a footnote.
We got focused experiments and campaigns that have been going for years.