PDA

View Full Version : Firefly anyone ?



TheThan
2007-04-26, 10:06 PM
Ok I know a lot of people here love the firefly series (including Serenity), and I know quite a few people here have played the RPG, I知 tentatively interested in it but I know nothing about the game. Since I知 a bit limited on income I知 a bit wary of blind purchasing here. So I知 interested in your thoughts on the game, how it plays, is it fun, how it compares to other rpgs etc.

thanks in advance.

Talya
2007-04-26, 10:30 PM
i haven't played it, but I love the series and have read the game book.

It looks like an interesting and easy to use system. It also seems (appropriately) deadly. People have very few life points and if you do much combat, people will die, almost at random. Yes, being better keeps you alive longer, but the game makes it easy for fluke events to kill your most powerful characters easily. I actually find that refreshingly realistic...

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-04-26, 11:15 PM
Played it. Some rules need more detailing, and some stuff needs houseruling to work well. I enjoyed it a lot and thought it was very true to the series. The main Firefly RPG forums have several very well thought out and acceptable houserules you can make that fix the few problems the system has. Also, there are fully rendered homemade ships that can be downloaded to suppliment the limited choices in the book (in addition to other very well-done fan suppliments).

One thing that surprised several people in my group is that (as Talya surmised) it has a VERY deadly combat system. Apparently, my future GM took the stock characters that were based off the show's crew, pitted them in a basic bar fight, and lost repeatedly. Unlike D&D, taking a hit (especially a bullet) is a big deal in Firefly. It makes you really think twice before drawing your gun. (Those that say "I attack it!" as a standard response will have very short lifespans.)

I recommend it highly.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-26, 11:16 PM
There are things I like and things I don't like about the game. Note that I haven't actually had a chance to run the thing, so I'm working entirely off of conjecture. I'm also AFB, so this may not be totally accurate.

It's both refreshingly and annoyingly general at times. I'm not using the right language here, but there are a few basic skills that, after a point, you can specialize in. So if you put a few points into Athletics, you hit the general limit and then start putting points specifically into jumping/swimming/whatever; it's sort of an auto-synergy. On the downside, there's literally nothing tying down the specialized skills, so you may end up with a GM asking for ludicrously specific skills that you may or may not expect to even exist.

I'm not a huge fan of how advancement works, either. Now granted, since it's not a level-based system, advancement isn't the core of the game (or of Firefly), but it's still wonky at times. Skills cost the same amount (and are cheap) at both character creation and during advancement. Attributes are far cheaper at creation than during advancement, and traits (similar to feats and flaws) are only available at creation, though some flaws can be bought off with experience as the game goes on. What this means is that, during advancement, you almost by necessity jack up your skills (rather than being able to, say, boost your Strength by the tiniest bit). And if you want to get any of the cool traits, you need to eat an essentially equal number of flaws, which is annoying. (See also -- every gunslinger around is allergic to something until he does enough smuggling). There's a very discernible "In order to be good at something, you need to have a debilitating flaw somewhere else" vibe to creation.

What's most distressing, though, is how many of the abilities work. Players get, basically, action points. The points can be spent using certain abilities or influencing die rolls. However, players typically earn these points by being problematic during missions. The GM is encouraged to award these points to players who actively screw things up for the team. This certainly reinforces the "Things don't go smooth" feel of Firefly, but it's also ham-fisted and objectively stupid. Further, "experience" is gained by trading in the "action points" at the end of sessions/adventures. So the guy that uses his to actively help the party gets markedly less for it than the guy who went in and nearly got the group killed. It's an absolutely horrifying way of running things and reeks so heavily of the ridiculous "I'm a ROLEplayer not a ROLLplayer" nonsense (you're neither, just an idiot.) that I would have to seriously consider who I was playing with before joining a game.

And finally, die rolling mechanics. Rather than getting flat bonuses, you increase your die size. So to sprint, you might roll your dexterity (which might be represented by a d8) and athletics or the running specialty (which might be a d10). So you might get a 2, or you might get an 18. As a result, even your super-strong macho man with d12+d6 strength and d10 in jumping might totally flub things and get a 4. And on a largely unrelated note, a lot of mechanics -- even common things -- aren't explained, since the sentiment is generally "The GM will choose an ability and a skill, or an ability + an ability (sometimes the same one) depending on the situation." I mean, the flexibility is nice and all, but if you want to actually tell me what I roll to shoot a guy, I'd appreciate it.

It's interesting, and it looks like a nice change of pace from D&D, but I don't think I could tolerate 'maining' it.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-04-26, 11:55 PM
What's most distressing, though, is how many of the abilities work. Players get, basically, action points. The points can be spent using certain abilities or influencing die rolls. However, players typically earn these points by being problematic during missions. The GM is encouraged to award these points to players who actively screw things up for the team. This certainly reinforces the "Things don't go smooth" feel of Firefly, but it's also ham-fisted and objectively stupid. Further, "experience" is gained by trading in the "action points" at the end of sessions/adventures. So the guy that uses his to actively help the party gets markedly less for it than the guy who went in and nearly got the group killed. It's an absolutely horrifying way of running things and reeks so heavily of the ridiculous "I'm a ROLEplayer not a ROLLplayer" nonsense (you're neither, just an idiot.) that I would have to seriously consider who I was playing with before joining a game.

IIRC, you don't get action points for screwing over your teammates or being problematic. I know at least that we received them for good RPing, solving puzzles, completing missions, etc. Kind of like standard XP, only able to be spent by any character to directly influence the game. What I enjoyed about it was the flexibility: you could directly influence a die roll, or even make minor adjustments to the storyline with enough points.

Talya
2007-04-26, 11:56 PM
Merlin,

On the "Flaws." Many of them are not actual flaws at all. They limit you, but you may be playing a personality where those fit, anyway. For instance, greedy is a flaw. Loyal is a flaw. Deadly enemy, I love that one. That's making the DM's job easy. Duh, of course you have deadly enemies. You're playing an RPG. If you didn't have the flaw, you'd still have deadly enemies but not be getting extra points for it, etc.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-27, 01:18 AM
IIRC, you don't get action points for screwing over your teammates or being problematic. Ah, found what I was remembering.
Playing out a minor fault could be worth a Plot Point all on its own. (You have an "Allergy" to perfume. The Registered Companion aboard your ship wears perfume. You start sneezing whenever she comes near you.) You might win more Plot Points if you use your complication to actually create trouble when things are otherwise going well.It's not as extreme as I might have made it look, certainly. Nevertheless, it still smells of "Roleplaying means being a colorblind midget with a club foot!" to me, and it still doesn't address the fact that the guy that's burning plot points to help the group out is getting less return than someone who doesn't (whether by being an active disservice or simply by hoarding them).

But like I said, I haven't played it, didn't have the book with the first post, and haven't read through it in a few months. So take everything I've said with a shovel of salt.

Jerthanis
2007-04-27, 04:41 AM
I ran it once in a short lived game and found several real problems with the way the game works. The way specialties work it's really painful for certain types of very focused characters, like intrusion experts, who need lots of skills far beyond the normal d6, and other, jack-of-all-trades characters are going to have Stat + d6 to every action they ever attempt are going to have drastically different overall skill levels.

The stats aren't balanced with each other, where some are absolutely vital to practically any successful character, and others aren't even useful to characters who heavily specialize in it. Then they're almost impossible to raise after the start.

Also, the system doesn't have robust enough mechanics to play characters who have roles that aren't combat oriented. Playing a character like Kaylee, Simon, or Wash would be waiting for the combat characters to get back from their run, and meantime maybe enjoying some side roleplay that doesn't require a DM's attention, and in the cases of Simon or Kaylee, their entire role on the ship will be taken care of often with one or two rolls. (Roll to figure out what's wrong with the engine... okay, now roll to fix it... okay, good job.) While Wash takes the role of the Shadowrun Decker, where it's a side-bit where 90% of the time no one who isn't the decker is doing anything important during those bits. Ship flight involving robust teamwork would be nice, as would more direction in the area of making specialized fields not involving combat be more interesting.

One houserule I use was instead of trading in surplus plot points for experience at the end of a session (a system which encourages you to never use plot points) you instead gain experience whenever you use a plot point on a successful action in a heroic circumstance. This encourages the players to act in a heroic manner and gamble their limited resource. I personally like using playing cards as plot points in order to silently indicate using them.

Also, Reavers have to outnumber the party almost 4 to 1 to pose any threat at all, but a guy with a pistol will *&#$% the party up. (and if you have grenades, nothing in the 'verse can stop you)

I felt like the game needed a better guideline for how many credits/platinum the players should make on a successful run. Because you give too little, the ship is literally stranded and they can't get off whatever rock they're left on (particularly if they fail a mission during a thin spot) and the game can end because you were too stingy. Conversely, if you give 500 C more than the party needs to keep flyin', they can afford to buy game-breakingly good armor and weapons.

Overall, the system does a fair job of mimicking the tone of the show, but it also doesn't have the robustness or depth that a game needs to really hold one's attention. The randomness of it takes away, and the lethal combat along with that randomness makes the game a little too chancy for my liking. Still, it's better than d20 modern/future for the setting/tone, and if you can find any way to keep flyin', it's worth it.

Shrew
2007-04-27, 08:02 AM
I played this system for almost a year, and it has its good points. Combat is very deadly so you are more likely to roleplay than just fight. Healing takes a long time, and seemed a little flawed as there were little rules as to how to speed up the process. Character creation is fairly quick and simple. It lends itself to developing a concept, and then plugging in simple numbers. The only real problem with the rules is that there are so few skills and rules that alot of the time you are left wondering what skill/rule to use. If you have a good DM that can think fast this is not a problem, but if you like to rules lawyer at all this will annoy you. The system is a loose set of guidelines IMO, that can lead to some cool stories. If you do not get caught up in debating rules you will enjoy it.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-04-27, 12:32 PM
If you have a good DM that can think fast this is not a problem, but if you like to rules lawyer at all this will annoy you. The system is a loose set of guidelines IMO, that can lead to some cool stories. If you do not get caught up in debating rules you will enjoy it.

I completely agree.

Also, as stated the pricing of items means that you have to be very careful with with rewards for each mission. A plot hook that requires a big haul to be paid back for other gains (I'm thinking of the episode War Stories here) might be necessary to correct an overabundance of wealth.

There are many ways to encourage the expenditure of plot points, with at least 5 good, highly recommended ways on the boards. One of the easiest is giving out plenty of them, and having a cap on the number that can be traded in for experience points. If the players know that they'll go to waste at the end of the session, they're much more willing to spend them.

One other thing about the system is that it feels much more freeform than D&D does. The system wasn't designed with number-crunchers or rules lawyers in mind.

Saph
2007-04-27, 12:48 PM
However, players typically earn these points by being problematic during missions. The GM is encouraged to award these points to players who actively screw things up for the team. This certainly reinforces the "Things don't go smooth" feel of Firefly, but it's also ham-fisted.

Seems unnecessary to me, to be honest. Just about every RPG party I've ever played in or run was more than capable of actively screwing a mission up all on their own. They didn't need encouraging.

In one particularly memorable session our party started bickering and got into a brawl just outside a dwarven city. The worst part? The dwarves had hired us for a job . . . and we managed to get exactly eighty yards outside the front gates before we started fighting each other. You could just imagine the dwarves watching from the wall, thinking "Oh Jesus, we didn't actually pay money to these retards, did we?"

- Saph

Morgan_Scott82
2007-04-27, 04:57 PM
I've read through the book, breifly, and I liked what I saw. In a lot of ways it reminded me of the old WEG d6 starwars system. As a fan of the 'verse I'd really like to take it for a test drive.

Some of what people have said here has reinforced some of my perceptions from reading through the book, and there have been some surprises too. Like the assertion that the rules system favors combat oriented characters, at first blush I thought this seemed a much better system for non-combat oriented characters than the typical d20 system game. Perhaps I'll have to borrow my friends book again and cook up a scenario and a few premade characters to run a one off and get a feel for the system.

JaronK
2007-04-27, 05:53 PM
The game is basically incomplete. In fact, it's totally incomplete. Heck, there's one paragraph that simply doesn't end on the next page. Poor editing.

Also, some stuff is noticeably missing. Telling you what your stats actually do would be nice. Rules for some sort of ship to ship combat, or at least hints for how that might work, would be appropriate for a space fairing game.

Honestly, there's so few actual rules in the book that you might as well just play freeform, because you're basically there anyway.

JaronK

JellyPooga
2007-04-27, 06:17 PM
So you might get a 2, or you might get an 18. As a result, even your super-strong macho man with d12+d6 strength and d10 in jumping might totally flub things and get a 4.

I don't quite see why this is problematic. Just because he's really well trained at Jumping and really strong doesn't mean that he's immune to stumbling or misjudging. On average, he'll be able to jump farther and more accurately than Mr.Weedy McBookworm, it's just that sometimes he screws up. Surely this is a better mechanic than 1d20+skill mod, in which, from the point that you have a +9 modifier to a skill, it's impossible to fail at an average task...no chance of tripping/stumbling/having a brain fart/etc.?

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-04-28, 12:43 AM
Heck, there's one paragraph that simply doesn't end on the next page. Poor editing.

Ack, I remember that now. That was a pain. :smallyuk:


Also, some stuff is noticeably missing. Telling you what your stats actually do would be nice. Rules for some sort of ship to ship combat, or at least hints for how that might work, would be appropriate for a space fairing game.

Honestly, there's so few actual rules in the book that you might as well just play freeform, because you're basically there anyway.

Yeah, there is a significant need for houserules--or the second book they released for it (I'll see about finding the title).