Roleplaying Games

Archived Posts from this Category

1 July, 2014

Is There a “Right Way” to Game..?

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games | Tags: , , |
[7] Comments 

This post came about from my thoughts on the graph in Runeslinger’s Spectrum of Play  article, as well as his Right Way to Game posts. The first has been reblogged here on The Black Campbell, but you can pop over to his Casting Shadows page to read more. His YouTube channel is probably even more useful.

There’s a lot of thought and opinion spilled into the series of tubes on how to play role playing games. The main point of contention is between those who like a game with a defined plot versus the “sandbox”, or a style of play in which the environment and the players’ actions (hopefully) give rise to some kind of adventure.

“…we each will have our favorite ways to go about [gaming], and among the voices talking about them there may be some strident calls for one way over an other…The next step was to address the nature of the play environment itself with a look at the concepts of the sandbox and the defined narrative…”

The quote is from Anthony Boyd (or Runeslinger), over at Casting Shadows. He has cobbled together a rather elegant continuum of play styles that address this argument. He separates the issue into matters of player agency — how much effect the player has on the narrative and outcome of a game; and defined story spectrum. I found the chart instructive in that if well describes how the the power  relationships of a role playing game between players and a game master/storyteller/etc.. or between players, is dependent on how well defined the story is. 

Spectrum1

I found this chart particularly pertinent after my recent post on a comparison test of the Firefly (Cortex) and Serenity (Cortex Plus) rules from Margaret Weis Production. In that test, we found that aspects of the system designed to spread narrative control, while fun, seemed to hamper the coherency of the story. 

He points out that “…we like what we like, and given choice, we tend to pick our favorite options over the rest… Some new game may draw us in with its setting, but push us in a new or formerly avoided direction with its mechanics…” This was certainly part of the issue the gaming group had with Firefly — we’ve run Cortex for quite some time and have found it (mostly) to be an excellent set of rules for creating nuanced characters and handling most scenarios for an adventure. When it falls down, though, it tends to do it hard. One of those genres it did not handle well was superheroes. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying may have been a busy system with a lot of moving parts, but it emulated the flavor of comic books near perfectly. Firefly we all wanted to like…but we like what we like, and in this case, for not over the top science fiction, we like Cortex (the Battlestar Galactica or Cortex 1.1 version.)

But why was that the case? Partly it was a preference in most of the group for stories that have some kind of defined plotline to an episode and the campaign overall, while still allowing for character action to sharply change the outcome of the same. Firefly — like Fate and many of the new wannabe-artsy “indie” games — does that, but the ability of the players to set complications and assets added new visions of the plot that aren’t necessarily well-meshed with what has been ongoing.

To use a cinema or television analogy, you have too many writers in the writers’ room and not a strong enough head writer or executive producer to contain their disparate visions of the story or universe. All those shows that “jumped the shark” by wandering off course badly; nearly ever movie you’ve seen where you leave saying “it was so close to good!” is the result of multiple writing teams working to please a different audience in the production or direction staff of the show or movie. (Case in point: Spaight’s excellent draft for what would be Prometheus versus the disaster of Lindelof’s final script, coupled with Scott’s last minute changes.) Too many cooks, as the expression goes, spoils the soup.

“In the chart above are two bands of specific points along a spectrum of implementation options ranging from ‘none’ to ‘total.’ I believe if you let your eyes roam across these bands, it should be pretty easy to spot roughly where your basic preferences lie. With a little effort, it should also be possible to spot where specific games require you to be to run them as intended. This might be useful in assessing if a game will be suitable for your group, or if an idea you have for a game will flow like you want within its confines, but I feel it has better uses yet. From my  perspective, it might offer a hint as to why a given campaign or group is or isn’t working for you, but will really shine when used to help add a new kind of scene, scenario, or mood to your toolbox of techniques.”

This point is particularly well thought out. A quick look at the chart puts my gaming style at 3-4 on the player agency and the narrative of the chart. This suggests that the indie, GM-less systems aren’t going to be my cup of tea. The main reason: I really cut my teeth as a GM on espionage games where the villains had a specific plan, the players would investigate to uncover and stop it, and to emulate the spy movies we were aping, I had to design (and still do from time to time) my adventure around specific action set pieces, exposition scenes, and a denouement that was usually quasi-planned out. Player actions might cut some of these scenes, force me to add others, or change the ending, but there was an outline of “things that should happen…”

Think of it as similar to building rooms in a dungeon. The players can choose where to go, in what order and manner, but the very definition of the space and the hazards is essentially a plot based on action set pieces. So despite the appearance of a sandbox-like environment, dungeon crawling is in many ways the most restrctive – story-wise — an RPG can get. Players can have almost total agency in what they do, but ultimately the act of wandering the space of the adventure constructs action.

The sandbox gaming style is much more collaborative and reduces the role of the gamemaster or storyteller to an equal, or “but is more equal than others” position wherein they act as referee at most. This certainly has its place, but I have yet to see this style of play hold together a long-term campaign outside of LARP circles, where the gaming environment and the larger number of people require a more cooperative approach to character interaction.

The idea that your play style might dictate the sort of game you will like should seem self-evident, but is it when you are looking over the games in your LGS (or more likely perusing DriveThru these days…)? Firefly is a setting all of our gaming group enjoy, but the mechanics forced us further right on the player agency spectrum that most of us were comfortable with. I found it didn’t so much effect my style of gamemastering, but the complications mechanic forced me into narrative corners I had to duck and weave to get out of.

I’ve played in campaigns — a Shadowrun game leaps to mind from the ‘90s — where it was mostly sandbox. We were nearly all the way right on the narrative — there was a proposal put before the group we could take or leave (but wanting to do more than hang out at the bar and trade quips, we took the job) and we had to plan and execute the job with no GM input. The GM style was so hands off that the guy disappeared for about an hour and we found him working under his old project Porsche 911… Not the sort of engagement that brings folks together. The players were fully in control of the narrative for the session, and what happened is one or two of the people at the table naturally took on the “leader” role from the GM so that when he came back to the table and tried to referee the big action scene, he discovered we had managed to plan it out well enough to overcome the opposition with ease, and he obviously started moving the goal posts. It was frustrating for everyone — too many cooks in the kitchen. A modern GM might have allowed the success to happen and tried to set something up to go wrong later, or with a system like Fate tossed a complication in that would bite the players later.

In the end, is there a right way to game? No…but there is a right way for you and/or your group to game. It’s worth venturing out of your confort zone from time to time to see if you like something that isn’t quite what you are used to. I’ve been on a mission to try and like Fate, of late — both Atomic Robo and Mindjammer use it, and I like the settings…but the mechanics just don’t jive with how I or my group tend to play.

And that’s alright.

 

30 June, 2014

The Problems With Preorders

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games
[2] Comments 

I’ve done a few of the Kickstarters, a d pre-ordered a couple of RPG books over the last year or so, hoping to help companies and lines I like stay alive. I’ve noted, however, a truly annoying tendency lately for gaming companies to keep bumping their ship dates.

Catalyst did a great job with their Transhuman kickstarter — the book was on time and quite nice. One got the impression that the piece was in the final stages when they went to the public for cash.

Others have been an exercise in frustration. One of the other ended well funded close to a year ago. Still no product and every update — though they have been good about keeping the supporters in the loop — pushes the product back further.

Another was a preorder that was due in May…I mean June…I mean sometimes if the moon is opposition with the house of whatever. PDF: out. Book: not so much. Same with another game book I was part of testing

These examples show a few issues with game companies. They are perpetually underfunded, so the people have real jobs. That means they aren’t too focused on their product. They make promises they don’t keep because their time management sucks, or they spent the funding on that new deck instead of art, or because they have a licensed property and should know what pain i the ass it is to deal with entertainment companies. It’s not all their fault…but it is also not not their fault.

I finally cancelled my pre-orders of the physical books for several of these games. I’ll see if they actually get to market, and I’ve got the PDFs. This is an object lesson that could have been learned by studying the history of the innovative Bren Ten pistol by Dornhaus & Dixon. They promised a fantastic new product and couldn’t get the gun to market fast enough, or with enough magazines for the weapons. People pulled their orders after a long wait. D&D died, and the Bren with it.

Don’t make promises you can keep. Don’t keep the people with the money waiting. There’s always another game to fund or buy.

 

25 June, 2014

Firefly vs. Serenity: The RPG Smackdown

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games | Tags: , , , , |
[9] Comments 

We’ve finally had a chance to finish our A/B test of Firefly and Serenity. The original idea was to run the exact same adventure and characters one after the other and do a comparison for those who might be interested, as well as to assess which rules set might be preferred by the group.

The mission (game seed idea, kids!): The characters get hired by Zeo Genomics, a biotech company out of Silverhold to do a bit of corporate espionage — steal a bunch of newtech bio-engingeered organ replacements from Advanced Humanics on Ariel, and get them to Silverhold. Through a bit of sci-fi technobabble, it’s not feasible to transport them in a cooler for the 10 day trip or so; they are going to be bootlegging these organs in a donor body (ala War Stories). The characters played were a former Alliance colonel and his sergeant, and a hacker. The doctor and pilot characters that were also made were later played as secondaries after the first two of the characters were incapacitated.

There was a bit of negotiating with the sponsor, then getting the team together on Ariel. Much of this happens in the “blackout zones” — areas where war damage or simple urban decay has sections of cities or whole towns off the grid. (Think Detroit…) There is a healthy underground movement(s) in the area, and the characters get the team together, including a med student in his last year of residency and up to his ass in drug and gambling debt.

They planned the raid on the hospital/research center, execute it with some issues of guards discovering them and a car chase involving a Tachikoma-like smart tank, followed by betrayal by the man that was supposed to get his guts scooped out ratting them out. Big firefight in the back-alley hospital they were to do the operation, massive destruction, then a desperate attempt to get out of the zone.

We wound up cutting the adventure in half and running the first half in Serenity (Classic Cortex), and the second half in Cortex+ Firefly. Afterward, we sent about half an hour or so comparing notes and dissecting the experience. Much of the talk centered on certain aspects that are common to Fate and similar products (of which Firefly bears close resemblance.)

K was the one most on the fence over which system he preferred. Our familiarity with old Cortex was, he thought, a major reason to find in favor of the older mechanics; we’re used to them. He found the dice pool mechanics fun — and I think this is one of the major draws to Cortex+ is the dice pool with multiple types (as compared to Fate’s -/0/+ d6s.) It’s fun to throw the bones. He also thought the ability to pick up assets and complications on the fly was enjoyable, and describing them was part of the fun. (During our big fight, we had things like Hemmed In d6, and Burning Building d10, and Stun Grenades Suck d6. The characters used skills test to have Defensible Position d6, and hero points to have Explosives d8, and the like…)

M found the basic mechanics were quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of things you could do with plot points, and the subsequent increase in complexity due to assets and complications to be an impediment to play. The flexibility that these mechanics give Cortex+ is, to his mind, both a draw and a bug. However, he liked the ability to chose to take a d4 distinction and gain a plot point vs. rolling a d8 to be an excellent way to keep the points flowing back and forth. However, he found the larger dice pools made the mechanic of the GM buying fumbles or botches with plot points to defeat the purpose of big dice pools.

“You roll five dice and get a big success, but then you have to count one or two 1s and got through the buying complications thing…”

He thought that the character design with the generalized attributes and everyone having at least d4 skill was more applicable to small groups, where having overlap between skill sets compensates for characters that are highly specialized, but thought in larger groups, this would dilute the utility of a single character.

His big complaint was that complications and assets quick cancel each other out, or stack to lead to a “death spiral” where characters are injured or so hampered by complications that they are finally crushed under the weight of them and can do nothing. Yes, you could choose to concede a scene or get “taken out”, but that seems not to be the natural impulse of players I’ve encountered.

J found the simpler rules of Serenity to be easier to manage for the player, and the asset/complications of the older system, along with the wider array of attributes allowed for a much more tailored and nuanced character. He did like the speed with which the plot points were gained and spend (something echoed by M) and found it less awkward than some of the free from rules of Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. Being a mathematician, he was looking at the utility of the assets and complications, and how they play out. Rolling five or six dice to choose two or three, he pointed out, did not create great statistical variation, and M — based on this — wondered if the bookkeeping required to track all the various complications and assets gave a better return than just rolling fewer dice and letting the GM set difficulties based on the scenario.

Some of these thoughts mirrored mine. I find the number of assets and complications that can get added to a scene ned to be limited. I chose to step up complications, rather than create new ones for the sake of easier bookkeeping. There’s a certain draw to having a metric for what’s happening in a scene (oh, this is a d6 hazard! cool!) but I found it sometimes made me feel I had to take the complication into account, even when the story felt like it should be flowing a different way. The let the chips fall type GMs would think this is the way it should play, but sometimes, there’s a movement to a scene that tells you where it should go. That’s the difference, I suppose, between a referee and a storyteller-style GM.

I also found that tracking the fails and botches from 1s to get annoying. If you are rolling enough dice, it’s bound to happen, and if your rolled spectacularly well, it seems unfair to slap a complication or bank one against the players. I do like rolling a bunch of dice, and think that — in moderation — the asset/complications of Fate/Cortex+ can be a cool addition to a game, but I get the feeling that this mechanic (especially when the players are setting the asset or complication) is more appropriate to beginner GMs or those gamers who like a more collaborative experience.

Frankly, I think too many cooks spoil the soup. Case in point, nearly every Hollywood movie or collaborative book series with a bunch of writers sucks. The more there are, the worse it is.

So, in the end, what was the verdict? K thought the game had potential and wanted to try it again, but grudgingly leaned toward Serenity (with the asset/complications rules from Battlestar Galactica [or Cortex 1.1]) over Firefly. My position was similar — I really want to like the game, and I think if we limit some of the use of the moving parts it will flow better — but i lean toward Classic Cortex, as well. M was in the old Cortex box from the jump, and while he liked select things Firefly was doing, he thought these could be effectively ported over to Serenity. J was also in the old Cortex docket. Unanimous, Serenity (caveat, with the 1.1 version asset/complications rules) wins over Firefly.

That said, the game has got good mechanics and would do well mated to the right setting. My mind immediately jumps to Star Trek, where all the characters are ludicrously cross-trained (“Quick, counsellor, drive this big f#$%ing spaceship!”) and the Firefly skills system of everyone gets at least a d4 models that well…but I’m less convinced that works well for the ‘Verse. The book is also beautiful and has a wealth of show information that might help a GM, and is worth it for that.

 

 

 

21 June, 2014

New Weapon for JB:007 RPG

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games | Tags: |
[2] Comments 

PM-06 9mm Submachinegun

P1090343-900x600

 

pm-06

The Polish-made PM-06 is a 9mm submachinegun that uses selective fire from a closed bolt, and has a collapsible stock. Low recoil and controllability make the weapon an excellent one for urban operations.

PM: +1   S/R: 2   AMMO: 25   DC: F   CLOS: 0-10   LONG: 40-60   CON: +3   JAM: 98+   DRAW: -2   RL: 2 COST: Game Information: Gain a +1PM when the shoulder stock is extended. The next set of statistics are for full-auto:

PM: 0   S/R: 6   AMMO: 25   DC: H   CLOS: 0-10   LONG: 40-60   CON: +3   JAM: 96+   DRAW: -2   RL; 2

 

 

21 June, 2014

Hacking and Communications Gear for James Bond: 007 RPG

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games, Technology | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

Here’s a few things to aid GMs with their james Bond: 007 campaign:

One of the things dropped to the public from the Edward Snowden leaks was the Advanced Network Technology catalogue.

 

6 June, 2014

Poll: What Do You Want More Of?

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games
Leave a Comment 
 

6 June, 2014

What Are People Playing?

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games
1 Comment 

It was an election day (primaries) in New Mexico this week, so I figured I’d throw out a poll or two. The first is to satisfy my curiosity — what are people playing these days? Throw up a comment if your fave isn’t here, or you have a specific variant.

 

 

2 June, 2014

Alternate Damage Mechanic: Classic Cortex

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

One of the things that I’ve always liked about the old James Bond RPG rules set, and to a lesser extent Cortex, is that the quality of the success translates into how well damage is rendered on an opponent. In the JB:007 game, the quality result is checked against the damage class of the weapon and there’s the damage done. In Cortex, the quality of the result gives you basic damage — 1/2 in stun and 1/2 in wound, but then there’s the additional roll of the weapon’s damage — this can give anything from a disappointing 1 up to the max of the die in wound.

It’s the one issue in Cortex’s combat mechanics that has always bugged me. Bang! I do 3S and 3W on my .45 pistol with a d6W and….oh. One. The second bit of random chance just seems to fly against the point of the basic damage based on quality. Granted, an extraordinary success lends the attacker certain benefits if the target doesn’t make their endurance test (or in the case of mooks, I just call it an incapacitate.)

I have two suggestions to improve the way combat is handled in Cortex:

1) Weapons and damage — In the case of damage, I suggest the player be allowed to  “take the average” — if a pistol has a d6W (and most do), the weapon normally does three. With an extraordinary success, it does the max for the die, in this example six. (Ex. Ted (d6 Agility+d4 Guns with a result of 10) shoots Steve (dodging with a d6 Agility and d6 Athletics with a disappointing 7 result.) He does 1 stun from basic damage, and 4 wound. Had he gotten an extraordinary (say, Steve only got a 3), it would have been 4 stun, 9 wound.

This should speed combat and reduce some of the chance of combat. I would still allow them to roll damage if they were feeling lucky, but it might be a good option for the GM running a big, complex fight to cut down on rolling and paperwork.

2) Always roll Endurance when taking a hit. Sometimes, you get hit and while it doesn’t do any real physical damage, it knocks the snot out of you. I like to have the players test against Endurance equal to an injury they sustain in combat. They took 2 stun, 2 wound? Beat a 4, otherwise be stunned for a number of rounds equal to how much to missed. On an extraordinary success, stick to the rules on pg. 94 of the Cortex core book — wounds start d2 Bleeding per turn of strenuous activity or 10 minutes otherwise; stun and you’re knocked out; basic damage, you’ve taken some kind of debilitating injury.

As always, feel free to completely ignore these suggestions.

 

2 June, 2014

Sample Serenity vs. Firefly RPG Characters

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

Here’s a selection of the characters created for the A/B test of Serenity vs. Firefly RPGs. I think we’re going to start with the Serenity version first, since it’s the one we know, then hit Firefly.

Colonel Atticus Wynn

40 years old, he was born on Persephone to a good, somewhat well-off gentry family that supported Unification. He was a graduate student in politics and history with a promising future in local government when the war hit. He was an officer in the 901st Scout Brigade (Persephone) and rose to the rank of colonel by the end of the war. He was known for his lead from the front style and for speed and tenacity in his operations. By the war’s end, he had moved up to commanding the brigade. 

   While skilled in social niceties, which had helped his career, he was increasingly horrified by the treatment of the Independents by the general command, and made a few impolitic statements that dead-ended his career in the military, and have hampered him since the war. Most of this is due to the animosity of then-General Lao — now the minister of security for the Alliance.

   His family is led by Sir Trevor Wynn, and his family were one of the original investors in Persephone. While his father has not disowned him, he has had to scale back his expectations until the issues with Lao have been resolved.

Attributes:  Agility:d6, Strength:d8, Vitality:d8, Alertness:d8, Intelligence:d8, Willpower:d10; Life Points:20

Assets: Fightin’ Type: d6, Friends in High Places d4, Military Rank d4, Patient d4 (homebrew asset, adds to Discipline, Tactics), Tough as Nails d4

Complications: Branded d4, Credo d4 (loyalty to men, never leave a man behind), Deadly Enemy d4, Things Don’t go Smooth: d4

Skills: Animal Handling d4, Athletics d6, Covert d6 (Stealth d8), Discipline d6 (Leadership d8), Guns d6, Heavy Weapons d4, Influence d6, Knowledge d4, Perception d6, Planetary Vehicles d4, Survival d6, Unarmed Combat d6

…and the Firefly version…

Attributes: Mental: d8, Physical: d8, Social: d8

Skills: Craft d4, Drive d4, Fight (Dirty) d8, Fix d4, Fly d4, Focus d6, Influence (Leadership) d8, Knowledge (Politics) d8, Labor d4, Move d6, Notice d6, Operate d4, Perform d4, Shoot d8, Sneak d6, Survive d8, Throw d4, Treat d4, Trick d6

Distinctions: Mercenary Leader d8 —  Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. Lead from the Front: Spend 1PP to loan Influence die to his subordinate on any task.

Vet of the Unification War d8 —  Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. War Stories: Can shift up an Asset or Complication if it is related to his service.

Smooth Talker d8 —  Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8.

Signature Assets: Stealth Suit d8, Alliance G-36 w/ GL d8, Family Ties d6 —  (Spend 1PP to create a contact asset for a scene.)

Next up —

Michael Sands

Sands was conscripted straight out of school into the Unification War; his family was not wealthy enough to pay for a surrogate, like those rich people… He shipped out from DeSantis on Ariel as a rifleman in the 509th Infantry. After a particularly nasty battle with the Browncoats on Persephone, he was transferred to the 901st Scout Brigade under then Captain Wynn. The more fast and loose command structure got rid of much of the nonsense that made the military so unbearable, and by the end of the war, Sands couldn’t really think of anything else he wanted to do.

   Downsized out of the military as a sergeant with several commendations for valor and combat, he found he was having a hard time adjusting to life as a civilian. He got into security, then into the protection racket with some questionable folks in the blackout zone on the edge of Molina. He was nicked by the security service for assault and spend six months in the Charleston minimum security and labor prison facility.

Attributes:  Agility: d8 Strength: d10, Vitality: d10, Alertness: d8, Intelligence: d6, Willpower: d6; Life Points:18

Assets: Friends in Low Places d4, Intimidatin’ Manner d4, Steady Calm d4, Tough As Nails d4

Complications:  Criminal d4, Chip on His Shoulder d4, Loyal d4

Skills:  Athletics d6, Covert d6, Discipline d4, Guns d6 (Rifles d8), Heavy Weapons d6, Influence d4, Linguist d4, Melee Combat d6, Perception d4, Planetary Vehicles d4, Survival d6, Unarmed Combat d6 (Brawling d10)

…in Firefly …

Attributes:  Mental: d8, Physical: d10, Social: d6

Skills:  Craft d6, Drive d4, Fight d10, Fix d6, Fly d4, Focus d4, Influence d4, Knowledge d4, Labor (Lift/Carry) d6, Move d6, Notice (sight) d6, Operate d4, Perform d4, Shoot (rifle) d10, Sneak (Stealth) d6, Survive d6, Throw d6, Treat d4, Trick d6

Distinctions:  Friends in Low Places d8 (You come from dirt, you’re friends are dirt…) — Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. 

Vet of the Unification War d8 (Alliance gave you skills, tell you not to use ‘em…) —  Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. Fightin’ Type: Spend 1PP to double or step up fight or shoot.

Living in the Cracks d8 (You what you have to to get by…) — Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. Fell Off a Truck: Step up/create a social complication for a d8 Asset.

Signature Assets:  Streetsweeper 12gd8 (Step up die for auto fire, but weapon is empty next turn.); One d6 asset to define.

…lastly,

Jun Li

A native of Jiangyin, she is the eldest daughter of two to a shop owner and his wife in Jiang Shan. She joined the Independents out of a sense of duty to keep her world free and was a gunboat navigator and pilot with the 12th Assault Fleet out of Silverhold. She was captured during the Battle of Red Sun and was interred at Camp Robison under horrible conditions. She suffered infection from the terrible sanitary conditions and had to have her legs amputated. She has a set of prosthetic legs of middling quality, but is still traumatized by the events. She is now a contract pilot for whoever will hire her.

Attributes: Agility: d8, Strength: d4, Vitality: d6, Alertness: d10, Intelligence: d10, Willpower: d10; Life Points:16

Assets:  If It Moves, I Can Fly It d6  (Adds to Pilot & Planet. Vehicles. Can spend 1PP like it was 3PP.)

Complications:  Amputee d4, Prejudice, Alliance d4, Traumatic Flashbacks d4

Skills:  Athletics d4, Craft d6, Discipline d4, Influence d6, Mech Engineering d6, Perception d6, Pilot d6 (Blockade Runner d8, Navigation d10), Planetary Vehicles d6, Survival d6, Tech Engineering d6, Unarmed Combat d6 (Brawling d10)

…and in Firefly …

Attributes:  Mental: d10, Physical: d6, Social: d8

Skills:  Craft d6, Drive (Cars) d10, Fight d4, Fix d10, Fly (Navigation) d10, Focus d4, Influence (Placate) d6, Knowledge d4, Labor d6, Move d4, Notice d6, Operate (Sensors)  d10, Perform d4, Shoot d4, Sneak d4, Survive d4, Throw d4, Treat d6, Trick d4

Distinctions:  If It Moves… d8  (Doesn’t matter what it is, if it moves, you can fly/drive it…) — Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. Push the Envelope: Roll d4 to gain a Big Damn Hero d8 next round.

Prisoner of War d8 (I was in Camp Robison…) — Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8. Kept My Humanity: Spend 1PP to step up a die loaned for a task or when treating someone.

Amputee d8 (…that where I lost my legs…) — Gain 1PP when rolling d4 instead of d8.

Signature Assets:  Part of Me d8 (1PP steps down a complications on her vehicle.); Asset d6 to be defined

The distinctions on this last one were all customized to try and emulate the Serenity version…

 

30 May, 2014

Next Up: A/B Test of Firefly RPG

Posted by blackcampbell under Roleplaying Games | Tags: , , , |
1 Comment 

I’ve got an e-copy of the Firefly RPG from Margaret Weiss Productions, and next week I’m planning to run a one-shot with the system. After that, we’re going to run the same adventure and characters in the old Serenity rules (with a slight modification — we’re using what I’ll call Cortex 1.1, using the Assets and Complications rules from Battlestar Galactica and Supernatural.)

However, I can give an initial report on the character creation for both systems, having put together six pre-gens for the one-shot.

1) Speed of character creation: I’ve been using Cortex 1.1 for six years of so for various games, so I’ve reached the point I can slap together a pretty nuanced character in about 10 minutes, tops. After getting used to how the writers laid out the character creation in the Firefly corebook, I was able to put together a reasonable version of the Cortex 1.1 characters in about the same time. It’d give the slight edge to the Cortex+ version here.

2) Closeness to concept: One of the reasons classic Cortex has become my favorite system is the ability to really craft a characters mechanics to match the concept. There’s six attributes — the physical: agility, strength, vitality; and the mental: alertness, intelligence, and willpower. Assets and complications give a die to the character or the GM, respectively, when they come into play. Usually, if I bring a complication into play, the player gets a plot point. Skills and their specializations are well-defined. These all are defined from d2 (weak!) to as high as 2d12 — but usually you will be between d4 and d12.

Firefly‘s Cortex+ has three attributes: physical, mental, and social and the characters get to assign a d6, d8, or d10 to the attributes. You can even them out to d8s across the boards, if you like. Assets and complications are replaced by the Fate-inspired Distinctions. You get three at d8, and  may add up to two triggers (ex., a Veteran of the Unification War distinction might allow you Fightin’ Type or War Stories with certain mechanical benefits.) All characters have the same skill list and at least a d4 in all of them. Each of the distinctions gives you a linked skill that you gain a die step.

For instance: Colonel Atticus Wynn is a veteran of the Alliance military who has fallen on hard times. He crossed the wrong politician or military figure during the war and has found himself unable to capitalize on his service. In the Serenity rules, he’s got the Branded, Deadly Enemy, and Things Don’t Go Smooth complications, with Fightin’ Type, Friends in High Places, Natural Leader, Military Rank, and Tough as Nails for assets. He’s well defined.

In the Cortex+ version, I had to really work to balance the distinctions in a way that emulated the complications and assets. I created one called Mercenary Leader based on Ship Captain. He has a Lead from the Front trigger that allows him to spend plot points on his subordinates. He’s a Veteran of the Unification War with the War Stories trigger allowing him to step up assets or complications from the war. He’s got Smooth Talker, as well, since he was build in Cortex 1.1 with good influence and social skills. The three distinctions left him with good Fight and Shoot skills, and lesser Influence, Knowledge, Move, and Survival skills that were improved with the nine points given to tweak the skills. He added two specializations and took two d8 Signature Assets — a stealth suit and an Alliance assault rifle.

The difference between the character builds was subtle in this character. I had to create distinctions or signature assets to get close to the classic Cortex build on a few characters, but overall I was able to get close to a match, mechanically, for the characters. A few of the character templates were close enough to tweak and make them work — there’s quite a few of these templates to use to get yourself into play quickly. However, there’s a lack of detail to the Cortex+ assets, it can be hard to get distinctions to model the detail of the asset/complications, and the specializations are a bit free-form. If the players want the character design to help them play the character, I lean slightly toward classic Cortex for the ability to tailor a character in detail.

So for speed of character creation, there’s almost no difference in how quick you can put together a character (unless you choose to tweak a template — then Firefly is the clear winner here.) As to creating a detailed character, classic Cortex does a better job, but not by much.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »