Serenity Roleplaying Game

[buzz]

I am not sure if you meant it this way, but you are basically saying that the playtest feedback said that the game would be better served by a different system and you ignored it in favor of a system that better emulates your own GM style.

I don't mean this in a snarky sense towards MWP or Jamie, just a curious one...

I have to wonder how much of the design decision was based on establishing a house system owned by MWP that would be bolstered by the popularity of the Serenity license. A fanbase is then created, to which can be sold subsequent products, such as BSG.

I suppose this is what any RPG company tries to do, though.

 

[buzz]

In these sorts of circumstances, if you use any skill system the way it is meant to be used, you end up with ridiculous results, since you end up with a reasonable chance for failing some routine task. And if you make the task easy enough that any skill character can accomplish it, then there's no point in asking the skilled character to make the check in the first place.

I think molonel's point, though, is that the d20 mechanic itself obviates the need for rolling mundane task checks, as you point out in category 3. There are certain tasks at which a PC cannot fail based on their competence. His beef with Serenty is that no character is ever talented enough to never fail, no matter how easy the task, and when they do fail, it's a botch, which is exactly the issue I've heard some people had with 1st ed. V:tM. Ergo...

As Jamie says, however, there's no reason to punish the players in that sense, even if you do call for a skill roll.

So, you'd save yourself the bother and just tell the player he succeeds.

...you're in a situation where the solution is: don't use the rules.

And, remember, Take 10 and Take 20 are part of the rules in d20, so not rolling for mundane tasks isn't really ignoring the rules, it's ignoring the roll. This is one of the things I really like about d20.

Now, granted, this is a pretty nitpicky, aesthetic criticism. It certainly didn't hurt White Wolf's sales.

This is why I really like rulesets that focus on rolls when there's conflict of interest, rather than when it's "good for the story," as I think the latter often translates to, "when the GM wants you to have a chance of failing." That, or systems like d20 and others that provide a mechanical reason why mundane tasks succeed.

I think an easy fix for Serenity would be a "Take 50%" rule. I.e., when there's no pressure, you can assume you roll (Skill max./2). This avoids the botch, but still keeps some tasks out of reach unless the player is willing to take a risk.

 

[Arnwyn]

If you make that check into, say, a DC 5 check then practically everybody who's a "skilled pilot" (1st level, 4 ranks and 10 Dex, or 1 rank and 16 Dex) can make that check without rolling the dice, and there's no point in even using the skill system for the situation in the first place.

[nitpicky]

Actually, by definition, you are using the skill system. (Roll /= "system") Combined with the Take 10 and Take 20 rules, the game mechanics are clear and unequivocal.

[/nitpicky]

 

[buzz]

Actually, by definition, you are using the skill system. (Roll /= "system") Combined with the Take 10 and Take 20 rules, the game mechanics are clear and unequivocal.

What I said, in fewer words and more clearly.

 

[eyebeams]

Thing is, in the episode, it's not hard for Mal at all. He doesn't even break his stride. I know it's not necessarily easy to replicate that in a typical RPG, but I think a system less focused on simulating Mal's gun skill and more on Mal's traits as a hero and his role in the overall story might come a little closer. At least, it suits my take on the show better.

You're confusing a system resource for a trait that exists in-world. It's perfectly valid to spend points and have it still look easy. Plus, of course, the very nature of this discussion proves that even though it looks easy it is not *trivial* at all, because it is, apparently, a noteworthy enough feat to power this conversation.

Thing is: It's easy to do in a "typical" RPG. Real easy. But if you cannot commit to a process based on honest communication guided by GM moderation it's not going to happen. Typical RPGs presuppose these functional relationships.

 

[molonel]

I'd disagree. If you're a skilled pilot, you shouldn't need to be making those checks, and the rules themselves tell you not to.

Okay, you disagree.

If I'm paying for a rules set, though, I'm paying for something that should be robust enough and well-enough designed that it's not going to bork my campaign if I use it for basic or common tasks.

To me, "Don't use this because it can't account for those things" is CYOA.

If someone is firing a gun or a longbow, or swinging a sword at someone with a very low armor class, I still have them roll.

Look at it this way... Using D20 skills you've got three possible outcomes for any skill-based scenario.

1. The DC is greater than the skill bonus + 20. There is no possible chance of success. The player simply cannot roll high enough for the character to succeed.

2. The DC is between skill bonus + 1 and Skill bonus +20. There is a varying degree of success from 1-in-20 to succeed to 1-in-20 to fail. Regardless, there is a chance to fail, and sometimes fail catastrophically.

3. The DC is equal to or less than the skill bonus. There is no possible chance of failure, since even if the player rolls a natural 1, he still succeeds. This can happen because either the character is exceptionally skillful, or the task is exceptionally easy.

You're evidently forgetting several things, or you simply haven't played d20 Modern.

1. Action Points. These allow a stretch beyond the simple skill bonus + 20.
2. Character abilities like the Smart Hero's planning ability or various advanced class features that add to important skill checks the character frequently uses.
3. The take 10 mechanic.
4. The aid another mechanic.

And that's just a start, going off the top of my head.

I'm running two of these games right now, and the skill system, even at low levels, allows you to DECIDE whether or not characters roll for even the most elementary tasks. It does not REQUIRE that you simply avoid the skill system in order to keep things running smoothly. Or from running at all.

That last case is what we're talking about. If the DC is that easy, then there's no reason to even roll the dice... "I park the car," the player says, and you reply, "Fine, you're parked."

I might DECIDE not to make them roll, but it's not going to send my game down in a flaming wreckage of screaming death if I make them roll.

That's the difference.

Essentally, the problem I had in the demo game I played in was that the DM was taking actions that should have been relegated to category 3, and moved them up to category 2. The Serenity equivalent of parking a car was elevated to a life or death situation. Imagine playing a 1st level D20 Modern character with 4 ranks in Pilot who had to make a DC 15 skill check every time you wanted to land an airplane... That's what this felt like.

See, and a 55% of failure for what should be a routine tasks is simply unacceptable to me. They're not telling you to avoid the skill system for the smoothness of the game, at that point. They're telling you to avoid the skill system because it collapses under the weight of even a simple, routine task.

And to me, that's a bad skill system.

If you make that check into, say, a DC 5 check then practically everybody who's a "skilled pilot" (1st level, 4 ranks and 10 Dex, or 1 rank and 16 Dex) can make that check without rolling the dice, and there's no point in even using the skill system for the situation in the first place.

But you see, the reason the DC is still there is because that is ONLY a routine task for a skilled pilot. It's not a routine task for anyone else.

Do you see what I mean? In these sorts of circumstances, if you use any skill system the way it is meant to be used, you end up with ridiculous results, since you end up with a reasonable chance for failing some routine task. And if you make the task easy enough that any skill character can accomplish it, then there's no point in asking the skilled character to make the check in the first place.

No, I don't see what you mean. I think you're simply making excuses for the skill system and trying to compare it to another skill system that handles those sorts of tasks better.

It isn't as bad as that, no. Generally, if you have even basic proficiency in a skill and are only average in the attribute that's being used in conjunction with that skill, you're almost always going to succeed at mundane, routine tasks. Because rolling a 1 on all of your dice indicates a botch, the assumption on the part of some people is that if you do fail an easy task like landing a ship on an open field on a clear day, it's more than likely going to be a botch and thus catastrophic. As Jamie says, however, there's no reason to punish the players in that sense, even if you do call for a skill roll. So, you'd save yourself the bother and just tell the player he succeeds. There's still every reason to call for an easy skill check in other circumstances, because some situations may hinge more on success or failure than others as the story dictates.

Except that your complaint, and the others I've heard in this thread, and yes, even those I've heard on other forums, all say the same thing.

It's entirely possible I'll snag this book on Ebay sometime, or pick up a used copy, but the odds are pretty good I'm just going to grab it for fluff and use another set of mechanics. Eventually, I'll take a closer look and decide for myself, but ultimately, the arguments I'm hearing from those defending the system sound too much like excuses for a poorly designed set of mechanics.

 

[eyebeams]

I don't agree.

First off, you should be aware that, according to the rulebook, the players aren't supposed to actually acknowledge that Plot Points exist. The book literally says that you should not say "I spend three Plot Points." You say, "I shoot the guy in the face," then had the GM some tokens and wink. A nod to immersion, I guess.

On top of this, the rules also specifically say that the GM can ignore Plot Points. It gives an example of Kaylee spending points (nod, wink) to use an Asset she paid for during chargen. The GM, seeing that this will derail his plot, hands the tokens back to her player and tells her she can't do it.

Then you have to trust the GM. This is why GM trust, along with clear communication, actually *is* the issue. Not acknowledging it outside of a formal social contract and obsessively assuming the group is a tabula rasa is not only a major problem in this discussion, but a major problem in the design community you're up-talking.

It's funny you should mention FATE, because no too long ago an indie-guy who's pretty well known confessed to me that he played an awful Spirit of the Century game. It was awful because players refused to communicate and cooperate and were devoted to the idea of the GM as some kind of player-opposing force. Thanks to that, the GM had no agency at all and the game could not progress. This wasn't because the GM couldn't "railroad." It was because the players were unwilling to provide the least suggestion about where the game should lead and would only express themselves within the confines of the formal system.

Should I blame Spirit of the Century for turning a bunch of players into selfish jerkwads? No -- not any more than you should blame Serenity for theoretical situations that only become a issue in the hands of a poor GM.

Traditional RPGs presuppose trust and friendship. Without that, you have concerns like this:

This whole issue of trust you're bringing up is beside the point, I think. Trust or no, there is nothing in the system that requires the GM to do anything with your Complications. I mean, we've done exactly what you're saying above. More than one player has said, e.g., "Well due to my [Complication X], I do this..." And nothing happens. It's a mother-may-I.

The game blows when the Plot Points are not flowing. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the system that forces them to flow.

. . . 'cause see, it's really not besides the point. You have continually phrased most forms of GM intervention as a negative, from taking Mearls' "mother may I" out of its original context (scenario-sensitive character abilities) to give it a denigrating polish, to talking about the GM as somebody who thwarts player aspirations.

You must discard the illusion that system exists to protect you from other people's interests. It exists to facilitate a collective interest and to ensure that its fulfillment takes a dynamic, unexpected path.

As a player, I don't think that I should have to be asking the GM, "Hey, could you use the system please?" The system should just make it happen. That way, the whole game doesn't sink or swim based on whether the GM is awesome. The awesome can be spread around the table.

I find the idea where you're afraid that your friend won't please you and create rules to protect yourself from him to be deeply socially dysfunctional. That is basically what you're describing. Plus, of course, I don't see how it actually works. If the GM is terrible and the system thwarts his desires, that the system is merely punishing one person instead of a group.

We do. I'm saying it'd be cool if there was some system reinforcement instead of having to resort to a bargaining process... a process that the book advises shouldn't even be allowed, effectively.

Not really. The book merely says you should try and be quiet about it. Mind you, this is confusing soft advice for a rule. They're not the same thing.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. I'm just trying to give an example of how to make things less passive and more active for both sides.

You've characterized the GM as the guy who hands out penalties and the player as the guys who hand out good stuff -- a consistent trend in this thread.

If you want a mainstream, non-indie example, look at Mutants & Masterminds. Complications exist in that game to both create adversity and give PCs Hero Points. They're not a mother-may-I where the player raises their hand and hopes the GM calls on them. They're flags that tell the GM how players want to earn their Hero Points; "If you invoke this, you give me X points."

No, they're still a mother-may-I, since the GM can simply choose not to invoke them. The fact that the GM has a extra layer of moderation in Serenity doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[vrykyl]

I don't mean this in a snarky sense towards MWP or Jamie, just a curious one...

I have to wonder how much of the design decision was based on establishing a house system owned by MWP that would be bolstered by the popularity of the Serenity license. A fanbase is then created, to which can be sold subsequent products, such as BSG.

I suppose this is what any RPG company tries to do, though.

It wasn't playtester feedback on the game system, but rather first reactions based on a one-page summary of what I had in mind. Nearly everyone was won over in our playtest group, including the GURPS champion who is now our best Cortex System game developer.

You are right that one of our goals was to develop a game system that we could use for our company's licenses. It's just a good business decision, and one that has paid off. We're not going to dump our game system, but we are working to evolve and improve it with each major release. I think BSG will be a big improvement, and the [DELETED] RPG coming up soon might be another step better, with lessons learned along the way.

But no RPG system pleases everyone. I could have used d20 Modern, or d6 Space, or FUDGE, or Savage Worlds, or Unisystem, and someone would point out THAT system's flaws. All we can do is try to make the Cortex System the best it can be.

** Jamie

 

[eyebeams]

Okay, you disagree.

If I'm paying for a rules set, though, I'm paying for something that should be robust enough and well-enough designed that it's not going to bork my campaign if I use it for basic or common tasks.

Maybe you shouldn't buy a rules set that isn't designed for what you want to do. Mind you, the number of rules sets that actually do as you demand are practically nonexistent. Using your criteria, you should dump all your d20 books, since typical level 1 characters will fail most routine tasks often enough to make the rules screwy.

Yet, here you are, on ENWorld.

 

[molonel]

Maybe you shouldn't buy a rules set that isn't designed for what you want to do.

That is what we're discussing, now, isn't it?

Mind you, the number of rules sets that actually do as you demand are practically nonexistent. Using your criteria, you should dump all your d20 books, since typical level 1 characters will fail most routine tasks often enough to make the rules screwy. Yet, here you are, on ENWorld.

Unfortunately, the d20 rules do account for precisely the sort of things I'm talking about. I've run more 3rd Edition D&D games than I can count, and I'm running two d20 Modern games, currently, and I've never - read: EVER - encountered that sort of problem, when rolling.