Serenity Roleplaying Game

[buzz]

I think this represents a problem with the institution of GMing.

I don't agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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."

 

[buzz]

Margaret herself said "they should fall like rain"...

They should. Otherwise, you're in "Plot Suck," as I've come to call it.

That's why I think it'd be more fun if the methods for earning them were more concrete and distributed more evenly between both sides of the screen.

It'd also be more fun, IMO, if Plot Points were more useful in general, a la Eden's Buffy. I also consider it a big mistake to reward players for hoarding them, i.e., that you get Advancement Points for any in surplus of six that you have at the end of the session.

 

[Cam Banks]

They should. Otherwise, you're in "Plot Suck," as I've come to call it.

That's why I think it'd be more fun if the methods for earning them were more concrete and distributed more evenly between both sides of the screen.

It'd also be more fun, IMO, if Plot Points were more useful in general, a la Eden's Buffy. I also consider it a big mistake to reward players for hoarding them, i.e., that you get Advancement Points for any in surplus of six that you have at the end of the session.

Believe it or not, feedback like this is very helpful when looking at future incarnations of the system. Much of what you seem to be objecting to is just how the rules are presented or advocated within the written text; the rules exist to serve your needs, but you're not seeing that made explicit. The advancement point/plot point thing is another one of the intense discussions that crops up on forums supporting the game.

I can't speak for Jamie specifically, but I do believe the core mechanic and rules set MWP uses for Serenity and the upcoming BSG game is solid. Implementation of that system may need to be tweaked or examined more closely the more the game gets into the hands of folks whose play styles differ, but I think this is beneficial rather than damning.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[buzz]

Much of what you seem to be objecting to is just how the rules are presented or advocated within the written text; the rules exist to serve your needs, but you're not seeing that made explicit.

I would definitely agree that the presentation/discussion of the rules is one of the things that is tripping up our group. Even if MWP didn't make the kind of rule changes I'd want, clarifying the procedures of play would go a long way towards improving my opinion. An extended, annotated example of play would make a great Web enhancement.

I don't plan to buy their BSG game, but for the sake of those who do, I hope MWP is making improvements in this area.

 

[Dragon Snack]

"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.

Yeah, in D&D it's called "rule 0". Most systems have something similar. If that is the sum total of your dislike of the system, well...

That's why I think it'd be more fun if the methods for earning them were more concrete and distributed more evenly between both sides of the screen.

OK, I can understand why you have a problem with the system, I just haven't seen it in play. I've walked away from bad (D&D) DMs in the past and would certainly walk away from a bad Serenity GM.

You are still playing though? There must be some reason why you are sticking around.

 

[buzz]

You are still playing though? There must be some reason why you are sticking around.

We agreed to play the game as a break from our regular D&D rotation. The GM is a huge fan of the series and the game. He's gone crazy with props, and that adds lots of awesome. E.g., we use bullet shells for Plot Point tokens. I'm a huge fan of the series, and the other guys are moderate fans. This is also the first non-d20 game the group has played since I joined, so I'm happy for the change-of-pace.

Next session will probably be our last, though. The scenarios have been pretty entertaining, but everyone sans the GM is just not having fun with the rules. Should this group ever explore the 'Verse again, it'll be with d20M/F.

 

[vrykyl]

Hey people.

I've been reading this thread with interest, and though I'm definitely not feeling a room full of love I'm always ready to see what people have to say about the game system.

I had a few goals when I started working on the game. They were:

• Create a game experience that reflected the source material;
• Make the game easy to learn;
• Facilitate fast play without need to constantly reference the rules;
• Write a book that was fun to read.

With a focus on characters, story, and fast-moving action over other elements of game design, I knew that I would be shifting away from some of the popular designs currently out there. And like a lot of rules-light RPG designs, the Cortex System puts more of a burden on the GM to understand his role than more rules-heavy systems that quantify everything in terms of numbers and balance and have a rule to fall back for everything.

Yes, it's more fast-and-loose, and we have high expectations on Cortex System GMs to understand how to tell a story and use the game system as a tool for storytelling. It's not for everybody.

When we first started playtesting, most of our review groups comments were: "Use Savage Worlds/GURPS/Cinematic Unisystem/d20 Modern/etc." Now, I like own all of those rule sets and have played with them all, but I wanted to do something a bit different. Not necessarily innovative, because I've never claimed to have come up with any new or revolutionary game design concepts. Instead, I took some tried-and-true ideas and put them together in a game that could be learned quickly and played intuitively. 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.

Because when I created the Serenity RPG, I knew that tons of Browncoats who had never picked up an RPG before would try to learn and play. I wanted something that was self-contained and wouldn't scare them away with too much rules and not enough flavor. You might argue that's because they haven't seen "good" game design, and you may be right. But based on responses at conventions, online forums, and weekly e-mails, I accomplished my mission.

I don't have a problem with some of the negative opinions, except for the non-helpful "Serenity RPG Sucks" without any sort of clarification. Hopefully you'll see how the rules have evolved with Battlestar Galactica and... the thing I can't tell you about yet. Maybe you'll give the game another try in the future. For those of you who've enjoyed and supported the game, I thank you and hope you continue to have a good time!

Jamie Chambers
Vice President
Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd.

 

[molonel]

Yeah, in D&D it's called "rule 0". Most systems have something similar. If that is the sum total of your dislike of the system, well...

You seem to be almost deliberately missing my point.

So let's take D&D game mechanics as a counter-example:

1. The combat engine is abstracted. For running gritty, realistic combat, GURPS is better.
2. The game tends to become bogged down with a LOT of fiddly bits at high- and epic-levels, such that I find different supers games and White Wolf's Exalted a preferable system for representing high-powered fantasy or divinity games.
3. The Diplomacy and Intimidation mechanics suck. (Personally, I use Rich Burlew's variant on Diplomacy, and I simply handle Intimidation as a function of Diplomacy.)
4. At high- and epic-levels, the skill system often breaks down into a system of binaries: either you can do something, and do it extremely well; or you don't even need to bother trying.

None of this has anything to do with Rule 0. Overall, for what it does, the D&D system works very well. It has weaknesses and problems, and there are issues that other gaming systems handle better.

The criticisms we are hearing here, though, are that the Serenity game system AS A SYSTEM has substantial problems.

You aren't even answering those, though. And you freely admit you don't know much about the system.

 

[Pbartender]

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

And like a lot of rules-light RPG designs, the Cortex System puts more of a burden on the GM to understand his role than more rules-heavy systems that quantify everything in terms of numbers and balance and have a rule to fall back for everything.

Yes, it's more fast-and-loose, and we have high expectations on Cortex System GMs to understand how to tell a story and use the game system as a tool for storytelling. It's not for everybody.

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.

 

[molonel]

I don't have a problem with some of the negative opinions, except for the non-helpful "Serenity RPG Sucks" without any sort of clarification. Hopefully you'll see how the rules have evolved with Battlestar Galactica and... the thing I can't tell you about yet. Maybe you'll give the game another try in the future. For those of you who've enjoyed and supported the game, I thank you and hope you continue to have a good time!

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.