Serenity Roleplaying Game

[eyebeams]

Sorry, but the movie's over a year and a half old. You can only respect spoilers for so long.

 

[Dragon Snack]

In what ways do you feel it does, DS?

I think the fact that it forces you to avoid combat or at the very least make an intricate plan (and be prepared to run if it goes wrong) is a big part of it. If you used the Savage Worlds rules (or D&D rules) it would encourage combat, since you can slug it out even if your plan goes awry (or if it's a weak plan to begin with). Sure, you can do a little min/maxing and take all combat Assets, but if the rest of the group doesn't do that your one trick pony doesn't get much of a chance to shine (yes, my group has someone like that, but the player is fine with the streotypical role and playing up his Amorous Complication).

Botches, which again, I absolutely despise in every other RPG, I think actually add to the flavor. In the TV series, everybody got their comeuppance at one point or another or played the fool at some point (some more than others, obviously). If the GM uses the botch as a way to tweak your character (instead of shafting you over), it plays that part of the series up. You do, of course, have to take it all in stride and play along...

The skills have been ripped on as well, but I think having a (seemingly) vast array of them allows you to customize the game to what you want. Sure, many could be dropped altogether (and perhaps should), but they are there if you want to go in that direction (or more likely, to show newer players where they could go).

In our play so far, I haven't really seen it. At least, I'm not seeing it evoke the spirit any more or less than a generic system paired with the setting material would. The closest I think we've come was a scene in which we had to bluff some Alliance feds who'd boarded our ship to keep them from finding a passenger we were transporting. Thing is, we did most of it without the rules coming into play at all. Even with my original draft of my PC (who actually had good Influence and Persuasion skills), I don't think it would have worked if we actually rolled for it.

I see much the same going on in my group, it is run very fast and loose. However, the rules are there (and used) when something needs to be done (including using Influence and Persuasion). They haven't gotten in the way, but they are being used.

Maybe it's the GM (I haven't perused much of the GM section of the book), he may very well be throwing out many of the rules or altering the DCs of tasks (we don't seem to be failing that many rolls as was hinted at in others posts). I see DMs do much the same in a lot of D&D games, so that shouldn't automatically be a disqualifier of the system.

 

[Dragon Snack]

(That quote was YOU, incidentally.)

Wow, really? Thanks so much for pointing that out!

See above why I consider botches to be a good thing in this setting.

Nobody suggested that the GM was incorrectly interpreting the rules. They just said that for a normal landing, they should have skipped the rules and not allowed them to crash even though they were evidently playing the game correctly.

We have no indication that the GM was setting the DCs for the tasks overly high, and two suggestions (one from you) that offered that maybe USING THE RULES wasn't the best idea.

*looks in the Keep Flyin' section (the rules)*

Lookie there, "...only a b'n dahn would roll them [the dice] for every single action attempted. Truth be told, most actions in the game don't require the use of dice at all."

So, while we don't know what the situation was exactly, as described to us, the GM was not using the rules correctly. Imagine that.

It's damning with faint praise when you say that a game isn't the worst system you've ever played.

No, I said it wasn't at the bottom of the list, but thanks for twisting my words...

In fact, I have yet to find a great system. The Serenity RPG may not Gods gift to gaming, but it's certainly not the PoC that it's been called in this thread.

 

[molonel]

Wow, really? Thanks so much for pointing that out!

No problem, man. I got your back.

See above why I consider botches to be a good thing in this setting.

Botch mechanics are like crit charts. Though ostensibly there to provide "realism," what they often provide, instead, are impediments to plot rather than moving it along.

Unpredictable flubs have just as much chance of popping up during a dramatic, story-enhancing moment as they do during a necessary "humility" moment. Watching players trip over each other like the Keystone Cops has never enhanced my gaming experience unless I'm playing Toons or Paranoia.

*looks in the Keep Flyin' section (the rules)*

Lookie there, "...only a b'n dahn would roll them [the dice] for every single action attempted. Truth be told, most actions in the game don't require the use of dice at all."

Heh.

That's called CYOA in game-design terms.

Color me unimpressed. If the mechanics are so screwed up that I can't use them for normal actions like landing my ship without ending the campaign in a flaming wreck of a TPK, why did I pay money for this system, again?

So, while we don't know what the situation was exactly, as described to us, the GM was not using the rules correctly. Imagine that.

"You don't have to use this complete kludge of a stinking pile of crap we call the rules" is not a rule. It's a dodge. Good game mechanics should work under circumstances like the ones described. They might not be completely NECESSARY, but if they can't even explain why a PC can't walk, talk and chew bubblegum at the same time, then they're a flaming pile of poo.

 

[Cam Banks]

That's called CYOA in game-design terms.

Color me unimpressed. If the mechanics are so screwed up that I can't use them for normal actions like landing my ship without ending the campaign in a flaming wreck of a TPK, why did I pay money for this system, again?

It's very simple.

The GM thinks to himself, is failing this skill check going to drive the story forward in any meaningful sense? Is failing this skill check going to be dramatically interesting in any way? Is there some element of risk we want to worry about? If so, roll the dice. If not, don't.

If I had a GM in any game, not just this one, who thought that you had to roll the dice for every single action my character attempted, and where failing was just stupid and made no sense at all ("you crash! HA HA HA HA!" or "you trip while chewing gum! ROTFLMAO!!!!ONEONE!") then I'd have to kick him.

Even failing should be interesting, or have some relevance. We shouldn't be concerned about those actions that don't have any significance. These rules are set up in such a way that, even if you fail, at least it means something, and thus for dramatic purposes there's not a lot of "I can't possibly fail this difficult check" stuff.

I get that you don't grok this, but a lot of people do, and they have adopted this kind of play in other games. Dogs in the Vineyard is an excellent example of "say yes unless it's dramatically interesting to roll the dice."

Cheers,
Cam

 

[molonel]

It's very simple. The GM thinks to himself, is failing this skill check going to drive the story forward in any meaningful sense? Is failing this skill check going to be dramatically interesting in any way? Is there some element of risk we want to worry about? If so, roll the dice. If not, don't.

Some sorts of actions, however, demand a level of skill in order to succeed. Not just anyone should be able to sit down in the pilot's seat and guide a starship to a planet's surface.

If you ARE the sort of person who can pilot a starship, though, then the skill system should be robust enough that it can account for that skill when you are doing the skilled equivalent of tying your shoes or chewing bubble gum.

If I have to ignore the skill system because it's going the TPK my party when they're getting dressed in the morning, that's a commentary on the system itself, and using the "dramatically interesting" excuse isn't going to convince me to buy it or try it.

Right now, given what I'm hearing, I'd use a different system if I wanted to run a Firefly game, because story material I can make for myself. When I buy a game, I'm buying it because it's a quality game, and not a game I have to ignore when the going gets rough.

If I had a GM in any game, not just this one, who thought that you had to roll the dice for every single action my character attempted, and where failing was just stupid and made no sense at all ("you crash! HA HA HA HA!" or "you trip while chewing gum! ROTFLMAO!!!!ONEONE!") then I'd have to kick him.

That's a false dilemma, though. Neither I, nor anyone else, is saying you should have to roll for everything.

What we're saying is that if the skill system is so borked that characters are going to get killed tying their shoes, then the game itself sucks.

Even failing should be interesting, or have some relevance. We shouldn't be concerned about those actions that don't have any significance. These rules are set up in such a way that, even if you fail, at least it means something, and thus for dramatic purposes there's not a lot of "I can't possibly fail this difficult check" stuff.

Failing is simply the opposite of succeeding. It's a possibility that comes with trying. A skill system in an RPG should be able to handle either common tasks or difficult tasks equally well. I shouldn't have to AVOID using the skill system just because it's designed to chew PCs up and spit them out.

If I'm going to avoid using a skill system for dramatic emphasis, then it better be because I choose not to use it, and not because it's such a poorly designed system that it's going to screw up the game if I do use it.

I get that you don't grok this, but a lot of people do, and they have adopted this kind of play in other games. Dogs in the Vineyard is an excellent example of "say yes unless it's dramatically interesting to roll the dice."

I think you're assuming I don't grasp or appreciate the play style when what I am critiquing is the game system itself based on other people's comments.

No system is perfect, but what I hear is people making excuses for problems rather than acknowledging them for what they are.

 

[buzz]

Dogs in the Vineyard is an excellent example of "say yes unless it's dramatically interesting to roll the dice."

To be specific, DitV's "Say Yes" isn't about rolling when it's "dramatically interesting." It's an admonition to not bother rolling if there is no conflict of interest. That's a critical difference between that game and Serenity. Serenity is a "roll when the GM says" system.

This is pretty much at the heart of my issues with the game.

I remember an interview with Jamie Chambers on the now-defunct RPG Radio podcast that was basically an extended ad for the game. He emphasized how his implementation of Plot Points really made the "story" and "flavor" of Firefly come through in the system. However, when I look at it, what I see is a pretty standard task/combat resolution mechanic inherited from the Sovereign Stone FRPG, with a fairly tame fudge point system bolted on.

Ergo, when you have a scene where, say, Mal, in a hurry to get off-planet to avoid incoming Reavers, shoots an Alliance fed in the face because the guy is using River as a human shield and Mal just plain does not have time to mess around... well, in Serenity you basically need to make a die roll based on Mal's pistol proficiency with a step penalty for the called shot. Mal needs to max out every die rolled (or hope to massage the results with Plot Points), or the fed fail his Endurance check to stay conscious. The odds are sort of iffy; it's all about a physics simulation.

See, what I would have preferred is that instead of Mal's loyalty to his crew being a Complication that exists solely to earn him more Plot Points if his player hams it up and the GM appreciates it (if he even remembers), it could instead be an Aspect of his character (to use some pseudo-FATE terminology). Then, when the scene above happens, Mal's player could say something like, "Man, we don't have time for this. I spend some Joss Points to invoke my You're On My Crew and Alliance Can Bite Me aspects. I shoot the fed in the face. Before he even hits the floor, Jayne and I toss his ass out the cargo doors. Wash, get us in the air, NOW!"

Similarly, there would be times when the GM could invoke these same aspects (earning Joss Points for Mal in exchange) when they would get Mal in trouble. "Well, logic tells you that completing the train job with a whole regiment of Alliance on board is plain suicide, but, hey, Alliance Can Bite Me. Take three Joss Points."

See, that would be way cooler in my book.

 

[buzz]

I think the fact that it forces you to avoid combat or at the very least make an intricate plan (and be prepared to run if it goes wrong) is a big part of it. ... Sure, you can do a little min/maxing and take all combat Assets, but if the rest of the group doesn't do that your one trick pony doesn't get much of a chance to shine...

My group is admittedly fairly combat-focused. Thing is, min-maxing for combat effectiveness is just so dang easy, and it doesn't necessarily require that your PC be a one-trick pony. Our ace twinker created a PC that can punch through schools, but is also an awesome mechanic.

Not to mention, there are a lot of Complications that are basically idiomatic bad things that are going to happen anyway (Loyalty, Credo, Prejudice: Alliance, Things Don't Go Smooth), so there's no reason to take any of the "you die instantly when combat starts" Complications... unless you want your campaign to end really quickly.

If the GM uses the botch as a way to tweak your character (instead of shafting you over), it plays that part of the series up.

See, I'd rather that, instead of being an "if" in the GM's hands, the system actually made Firefly-esque things happen. E.g., how damage in Truth & Justice makes genre-appropriate complications arise; take a hard hit from Doc Ock and Aunt May ends up getting kidnapped by Green Goblin.

The skills have been ripped on as well, but I think having a (seemingly) vast array of them allows you to customize the game to what you want. Sure, many could be dropped altogether (and perhaps should), but they are there if you want to go in that direction (or more likely, to show newer players where they could go).

My beef with Serenity skills is that the rules are most vague about the ones your PC is best at (with the exception of combat skills). My PC originally had an Intuition specialty under Perception. However, what this means is pretty much up to the GM. I'd hoped it would synergize with his Nose for Trouble Asset, but it just never came up. Ergo, when I revised him, I ditched that and just pumped up Guns/Pistol and got some basic Medical Expertise instead.

Maybe it's the GM (I haven't perused much of the GM section of the book), he may very well be throwing out many of the rules or altering the DCs of tasks (we don't seem to be failing that many rolls as was hinted at in others posts). I see DMs do much the same in a lot of D&D games, so that shouldn't automatically be a disqualifier of the system.

I guess I do. A DM looking to focus on story in D&D is going to have to fudge, because the system just isn't about that. D&D is up front about this, so that doesn't bother me. Firefly, otoh, is about story and character and conflict... if the GM needs to fiddle in order to make that happen, then I don't think the system is really doing its job.

 

[eyebeams]

To be specific, DitV's "Say Yes" isn't about rolling when it's "dramatically interesting." It's an admonition to not bother rolling if there is no conflict of interest. That's a critical difference between that game and Serenity. Serenity is a "roll when the GM says" system.

This is pretty much at the heart of my issues with the game.

I think this represents a problem with the institution of GMing. There's a whole bunch of communication between people that's missing in this whole thing. The GM doesn't regulate rolls in isolation from the needs of the group. The misconception is that the GM has power in order to impose story, when the GM has power in order to inspire performance. This works in a number of ways:

1) The GM represents less aggressive players and augments their voices.

2) The GM promotes alternatives to cliched solutions (like shooting that guy, which is pretty cliched).

3) The GM makes risk significant by representing elements that are out of player control, making player actions meaningful instead of solipsistic.

If you're not interested in these things and/or don't trust the GM -- and if you don't communicate with the GM, then I suppose this institution isn't for you. But the role of GM presupposes open, friendly communication. But I would submit that this problem represents a relationship that should not exist in *any* play group. Basically, you need to treat other people like friends working together to have fun. If you're unable or unwilling to do this by, for example, suggesting to the GM that your Complication come into play, that's a problem -- and not a problem with the system.

See, what I would have preferred is that instead of Mal's loyalty to his crew being a Complication that exists solely to earn him more Plot Points if his player hams it up and the GM appreciates it (if he even remembers), it could instead be an Aspect of his character (to use some pseudo-FATE terminology). Then, when the scene above happens, Mal's player could say something like, "Man, we don't have time for this. I spend some Joss Points to invoke my You're On My Crew and Alliance Can Bite Me aspects. I shoot the fed in the face. Before he even hits the floor, Jayne and I toss his ass out the cargo doors. Wash, get us in the air, NOW!"

There are a couple of problematic assumptions here:

1) You think the GM should appreciate something? Why don't you say anything?

2) You assume that it's all about the GM, when the fact is that the GM is looking to entertain the group. That's what makes the GM grant rewards.

The alternative you suggest has its own problems:

1) Why the hell do I have to be limited to effectiveness within my relationships? This evinces at least as much distrust for the player as the Serenity RPG rules -- and probably more.

2) This limits channels of effectiveness to cliched relationships, but the fact is that the series, movie and players all challenge those cliches. Cliches are also a problem because of what they are. They limit dynamic explorations of the situation and character because they say that you'd best act only when such and such a situation comes up, and it punishes players for changing characterization.

Similarly, there would be times when the GM could invoke these same aspects (earning Joss Points for Mal in exchange) when they would get Mal in trouble. "Well, logic tells you that completing the train job with a whole regiment of Alliance on board is plain suicide, but, hey, Alliance Can Bite Me. Take three Joss Points."

See, that would be way cooler in my book.

Why are you assuming that the relationships here are positive between players, while the GM exists to hose them? What kind of screwed up GMing is that?

Now, let's get back to the example. In a game, a situation like this should be imposed in these situations:

1) It's easy for the character to overcome. The GM knows the player has the points and ability to overcome it.

2) There are alternatives. Maybe it's not easy, but maybe somebody better play the world-weary vet and ask if the wet behind the ears Alliance trooper really wants to play it this way.

3) It's a complication that arises from previous failure. This is an RPG. Sometimes, this situation means that River might actually die, just as it meant that Wash died.

4) A combination of the above.

Outside of these situations, it's not a very entertaining situation -- and really, good and bad scenario design isn't something a game system will necessarily influence.

 

[Cam Banks]

I think this represents a problem with the institution of GMing. There's a whole bunch of communication between people that's missing in this whole thing. The GM doesn't regulate rolls in isolation from the needs of the group.

Point of fact, if the nature of the GM/Player relationship in a group that's planning on playing Serenity is adversarial (even if this is an accepted aspect of their group dynamic) then it really isn't going to work very well.

It's been said by some of the game's most outspoken supporters on the fan message boards that the game is really all about the plot points. Margaret herself said "they should fall like rain" - the players should feel that they can influence the story's landscape and their own actions with them, but not to the point that nothing is challenging. It's a shift in focus for many groups, admittedly, but I don't believe it either endorses or characterizes bad design for it to be so central.

Cheers,
Cam