Serenity Roleplaying Game

[vrykyl]

Hi there!

It's definitely a matter of style. The Cortex System style of play doesn't work with groups who might be very biased toward a particular rules set or style of play. I tried to get my old game group to switch from AD&D 2nd Edition to other games, but in the end they hated it. They wanted their D&D back (from GURPS, SAGA, TORG, you name it).

Scenarios for Serenity need to be either written for or customized for the group, so that everyone gets a chance to shine and use their skills. The Wash, Simon, and Kaylee types need a chance to shine just as much as the Mals, Zoes, and Jaynes. And with the skill system and character build, and with my own experience with the game, it seems that it works. Obviously some here disagree.

** Jamie

Hi, Jamie... I think you're signature is on the inside cover of my prize copy right alongside Margaret's.

I think that might be the core of my personal bad experiences with the game, at least. A GM who was trying really hard to emulate the "freebooters up to their necks in trouble" style of the television show, and going just a bit too far. There wasn't a single situation presented in which we could use our own personal wits or the character's skills to succeed. Everything we'd tried ended up being a long shot that blew up in our faces in spectacular failure. In the end, we ended up nibbling at the hooks, but never taking the bait, flitting from plot point to plot point without really acciomplishing anything or even really knowing what we were supposed to be accomplishing in the first place.

At the time it seemed a failure of the mechanics of the rules, but in hindsight, it could have equally been the fault of a GM who thought he was being clever, but wasn't.

 

[vrykyl]

Okay, I'm happy to address your points and I've not only run the system plenty of times myself, but worked with lots of people who run it on a regular basis. "Clumsy" and "inelegant" or words pretty heavily laced with opinion. Can you clarify what you mean? I've had lots of people say the rules aren't comprehensive enough and almost too "elegant" (meaning sticking very closely with a core game mechanic and not providing endless alternate rules for every situation).

As for "make normal tasks into possible suicide missions" I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, either. The example of crashing the ship on a routine landing on a flat surface on a clear day is specifically outside of our presentation in the rules -- where you don't roll the dice for ordinary things like flipping a light switch or getting dressed in the morning. If the story isn't served by the dice roll (meaning the event is of little dramatic consequence) then the roll is unnecessary.

Combat is quite deadly, and it's supposed to be. If you stand in the middle of room with people shooting at you and you don't dive for cover, you can and will be riddled with holes. You should never pull your gun out unless you mean serious business, which I think matches the tone of the source material. The Crew has plot points to help keep them alive and offset some bad luck (in terms of dice rolls).

One of the reasons we avoided flat modifiers entirely was to keep the range of success and failure pretty wide. I know that drives some gamers crazy, but having designed for the d20 System a lot (a game that I enjoy for epic fantasy, just not so much for modern and sci-fi) I hate it when the modifiers become more important than the die roll. When I have a +37 modifier the roll itself is usually beside the point. In the Serenity universe, even skilled characters fail more than once -- and I wanted the game to reflect that.

It could be that I'm not going to win you over. I suspect our styles of play are very different -- and essentially the Serenity RPG was designed around the way I run games. It's an ideal system for me that happens to be shared with plenty of others. If you and your group prefer to run the Firefly or BSG universe with another game system it doesn't hurt my feelings. I spent years converting material to my own tastes, and I expect others to do the same.

Jamie Chambers
Vice President
Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd.

While I appreciate your feedback, it doesn't do a whole lot to answer some of the points that I, as a potential customer, want to hear about in this thread.

I haven't played your system. But the points raised here are enough to give me pause, and the defenders haven't done anything to convince me that the criticisms are wrong.

A system may be "easy to play" and "designed so that you don't have to reference the rules constantly" but if the rules themselves are clumsy and inelegant, and make normal tasks into possible suicide missions if the rules are actually employed, that doesn't encourage me to buy your systems at all.

I'm a big fan of the Firefly series, and Serenity, and I've heard these same criticisms on other forums and from other people who played the game. If you designed the game for people who don't play RPGs, great. But that's no excuse for shoddy craftsmanship on the system design.

I can handle story and plot just fine. What I want in a game is a solid rules set that doesn't require me to ignore it in order to play the game effectively.

And if Battlestar Galatica is designed along similar lines, then I'll probably stick with another system when I want to run a game in that universe.

 

[buzz]

Jamie, thanks for stopping by the thread and offering your comments.

While there are some real cutting-edge game designs out there, especially in the Indie game design community, most of them are useless in trying to design something destined for the mass-market.

Being an indie fanboy, I'd naturally take issue with this. Given your expectation that many people new to RPG'ing would be picking up the game, I'm not sure I see why you'd need to stick closer to a design that existing RPG'ers would find more palatable. If anything, your audience is open to innovation, since they have no real expectations.

Not to mention, I dunno if I'm saying that you need to get really out there (e.g., Universalis) in order to do Firefly justice. I keep bringing up FATE/SotC, which is based on the venerable FUDGE, and that's pretty newbie-friendly, I think. And I was talking M&M above, which is d20, after all. I just think there's a better way.

(It's not a mindset issue, IMO. We're giving the game a shot, and it's simply not doing it for most of us.)

Regardless, the one thing I hope you take away from my criticism of Serenity is more clarity in the rule text, and definitely more examples of the rules and procedures in play. Design criticism aside, one of the biggest issues our group has had is a simple inability to easily figure out how the mechanics work. The book itself could be a much better tool in this regard. It's mostly been fan created material that has added clarity for us (though some ground was lost with the changes in the 4th printing).

 

[molonel]

Thank you for your response. I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm taking a serious look at a lot of gaming systems right now, and Serenity is on the list. Battlestar Galatica interests me more, honestly. But I'm not trying simply to be argumentative.

As for "make normal tasks into possible suicide missions" I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, either. The example of crashing the ship on a routine landing on a flat surface on a clear day is specifically outside of our presentation in the rules -- where you don't roll the dice for ordinary things like flipping a light switch or getting dressed in the morning. If the story isn't served by the dice roll (meaning the event is of little dramatic consequence) then the roll is unnecessary ... One of the reasons we avoided flat modifiers entirely was to keep the range of success and failure pretty wide. I know that drives some gamers crazy, but having designed for the d20 System a lot (a game that I enjoy for epic fantasy, just not so much for modern and sci-fi) I hate it when the modifiers become more important than the die roll. When I have a +37 modifier the roll itself is usually beside the point. In the Serenity universe, even skilled characters fail more than once -- and I wanted the game to reflect that.

Here's my problem, then. I feel a skill system should be robust enough to cover handling both complex or simple tasks equally well. I agree - and, in fact, my comment on binaries in the d20 skill system above reflects this - that failure for even skilled individuals can add to a story. But it almost sounds like you're encouraging people to avoid the skill system for "routine" tasks because it could TPK the group because the mechanics are designed with allegedly gritty flavor in mind.

Although you may hate it when modifiers become more important than the die roll, I don't see how this is different from "Just assume he succeeds, and don't use the skill system" in design terms.

 

[buzz]

Combat is quite deadly, and it's supposed to be. If you stand in the middle of room with people shooting at you and you don't dive for cover, you can and will be riddled with holes.

We do it all the time. Seems to work for us.

 

[vrykyl]

Molonel, no problem. I don't think you're being argumentative, but I also don't think either of us are likely to swing around to the other's point of view.

I hope you'll give the BSG RPG a look when it comes out. We've definitely listened to the fans when it comes to making the rules a lot more clear with plenty of examples. We learned a lot with the Serenity RPG and we're applying those lessons to the new stuff. (Including the--damn, I can't tell you about that yet!)

Okay, even if the GM wants to make the pilot roll to land the ship in an ordinary situation, why does that mean it crashes and everyone dies? If I were running the game, I'd make it a rough landing that causes everyone a d2 Stun damage and puts some superficial damage on the ship. Though some may call it a weakness that the book doesn't exactly spell out what to do in that situation, that's why I say that it puts higher expectations on the GM. I think killing or badly injuring an entire player-character group over a botched roll in an ordinary piloting situation is bad GMing more than bad game design. But that may just be me.

As for simple versus complex actions, the system definitely deals with both of those! It's just our style prefers you ignore "mundane" actions that don't have any consequence to the story. Sure, you may stub your toe every once in a while while walking across the room, but the snore-fest of games that make you roll for every time you do everything just don't match the storytelling model we're going for with Serenity (which is Joss Whedon style storytelling). In Firefly, plenty of times Wash just landed the ship -- no big deal and the camera never even showed him in the cockpit. (We just saw Serenity touch down.) But at the beginning of the movie, he was landing the ship after the primary buffer panel flew off -- an event that suddenly made the landing have dramatic consequence, and a pretty serious one: "Oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die."

I'm all for rolling dice, and lots of them. That's why I designed a game that uses MORE dice than, say, d20. But they should be used appropriately, when it matters. We may have to agree to disagree, but that's how I see it. Thanks!

Jamie Chambers
Vice President
Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd.

Thank you for your response. I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm taking a serious look at a lot of gaming systems right now, and Serenity is on the list. Battlestar Galatica interests me more, honestly. But I'm not trying simply to be argumentative.

Here's my problem, then. I feel a skill system should be robust enough to cover handling both complex or simple tasks equally well. I agree - and, in fact, my comment on binaries in the d20 skill system above reflects this - that failure for even skilled individuals can add to a story. But it almost sounds like you're encouraging people to avoid the skill system for "routine" tasks because it could TPK the group because the mechanics are designed with allegedly gritty flavor in mind.

Although you may hate it when modifiers become more important than the die roll, I don't see how this is different from "Just assume he succeeds, and don't use the skill system" in design terms.

 

[SteveC]

In the Serenity universe, even skilled characters fail more than once -- and I wanted the game to reflect that.

Jamie!
Thanks for coming into the discussion. I don't get the chance to talk with game authors very often, so I'm feeling bad for being critical of the system...but... I just disagree.

I just have to say that Serenity characters only fail when it might be funny or generate plot complications to fail, but when it's all on the line, they just don't fail, ever.

In the scene where Mal shoots the Alliance agent that has a gun on River, he just succeeds at it. Bang, it happens and it's over. It happens that way because it's required by the plot, and it also happens because it exemplifies two of Mal's primary aspects: he's the reluctant hero, and he's deceptively good with a gun.

In the Serenity system, it would be hard to do that, even with the plot point rules.

Now I'm not just singling Serenity out for this, this is a problem with just about every role playing game that's ever been made. To my mind, what would make more sense would be for there to be more randomness and more chance for exceptional success or failure in less important circumstances. That's where a lot of the conflicts and the humor from the show come from.

I'm also going to disagree with the notion that Serenity should be a game where characters only reluctantly enter combat. Firefly has countless examples (I'd say almost every episode) where the crew start out with a plan, and intend to avoid combat, but they usually fail, and end up shooting. And when they're shooting, they come out of the situation alive. Maybe not with their goal intact, but alive.

In a mechanical sense, the problem I have with Serenity is the same one I have with Savage Worlds: a small number of dice make it more likely that you'll fail any time you roll, even if you're very good. I typically favor a bell-curved system, because I like the chances for extreme results to be unlikely. I just haven't seen that with Serenity. That makes it just not my kind of game in the end.

However, I love the work you've done with the game, and I love the fact that you're obviously a fan. I'm just going to be running my Firefly game with Spirit of the Century...



--Steve

 

[vrykyl]

Jamie!
Thanks for coming into the discussion. I don't get the chance to talk with game authors very often, so I'm feeling bad for being critical of the system...but... I just disagree.

I just have to say that Serenity characters only fail when it might be funny or generate plot complications to fail, but when it's all on the line, they just don't fail, ever.

Well, that's just called writing, and can be said of anything. Wash does all kinds of fancy flying to avoid the dirty cop and the guy ends up just flying right over the canyon. Mal desperately reaches for a weapon to fight the Operative and pulls out... a screwdriver. (Yes, that means it's funny -- but so should that kind of failure in an RPG situation.) Shepherd Book gets knocked out by Jubal Early with one kick to the head.

In the scene where Mal shoots the Alliance agent that has a gun on River, he just succeeds at it. Bang, it happens and it's over. It happens that way because it's required by the plot, and it also happens because it exemplifies two of Mal's primary aspects: he's the reluctant hero, and he's deceptively good with a gun.

In the Serenity system, it would be hard to do that, even with the plot point rules.

Difficult, yes. But with the right use of plot points it could certainly be possible. Any game system that makes it easy to shoot the bad guy in the face won't be much of a challenge to the players. It's cool because it's hard.

Now I'm not just singling Serenity out for this, this is a problem with just about every role playing game that's ever been made. To my mind, what would make more sense would be for there to be more randomness and more chance for exceptional success or failure in less important circumstances. That's where a lot of the conflicts and the humor from the show come from.

I get where you're coming from, but things that make the game more complicated also make it less accessible. Like many other games, a good or bad GM makes a huge difference in the Serenity RPG.

I'm also going to disagree with the notion that Serenity should be a game where characters only reluctantly enter combat. Firefly has countless examples (I'd say almost every episode) where the crew start out with a plan, and intend to avoid combat, but they usually fail, and end up shooting. And when they're shooting, they come out of the situation alive. Maybe not with their goal intact, but alive.

It's definitely not a game system where combat is supposed to be rare -- just taken seriously. Even Jayne doesn't just stand there when the bullets are flying. He takes cover. When Mal had a shotgun stuck in his face in "Jaynestown," he didn't just laugh and say, "I have plenty of life points!" It's a gorram shotgun and he backed down. The poor kid who took the shot for Jayne ended up dead (though he reappeared, alive, in Season One of 24 but I digress.

In a mechanical sense, the problem I have with Serenity is the same one I have with Savage Worlds: a small number of dice make it more likely that you'll fail any time you roll, even if you're very good. I typically favor a bell-curved system, because I like the chances for extreme results to be unlikely. I just haven't seen that with Serenity. That makes it just not my kind of game in the end.

However, I love the work you've done with the game, and I love the fact that you're obviously a fan. I'm just going to be running my Firefly game with Spirit of the Century...

No problem. I'm glad you took a look at the game and evaluated it. I'm an RPG rules-junkie, which is why my shelf is filled with games I'll never play again. Some games just don't appeal to same players. You'll never catch me play RoleMaster or HERO System. Nothing wrong with the design, but the play style is pretty much the opposite of the kinds of games I prefer.

** Jamie

 

[buzz]

Difficult, yes. But with the right use of plot points it could certainly be possible. Any game system that makes it easy to shoot the bad guy in the face won't be much of a challenge to the players. It's cool because it's hard.

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.

 

[buzz]

I'm just going to be running my Firefly game with Spirit of the Century...

A man after my own heart.