Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Firefly: The Game» Forums » Variants

Subject: "No, laddie, that job is ours, now..." rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Malme
United Kingdom
Peterborough
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Before I left the Serenity, Reynolds had a sweet little job lined up for the future. Dare say, if we had a word with Badger, we might pip him to the post."

A variant to introduce a little more conflict between players, and reward Captains who are loyal to their Contacts.

When hiring disgruntled crew from another player, you also get to look at their non-active jobs, if they have any.

You can then steal a job (i.e. remove it from the other player's non-active jobs and add it to your own), if you are "more solid" with the contact than the other player.

Note the following:

1) You can only steal a job if you are hiring away disgruntled crew from the other player. Thematically, the new crew member has the details of the job.

2) You can only steal one job per member of disgruntled crew hired.

3) You cannot steal a job if you are only *equally* solid with the partner.

4) You cannot steal a job if it means you will have more then 3 non-active jobs.

Note that this variant requires you to keep all cards for completed jobs, rather than just the first one for each contact - thus the player with the most completed jobs for a partner is the most solid. If you Lose Reputation, discard all cards for that contact.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Snow
United States
New York City
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shake Nice!

"Its getting mighty crowded in my sky!"
--Malcolm Reynolds
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Krubski
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Gotta be honest, I know a few people have experimented with different effects for "more solid." I'm not a fan. I like that in Firefly, no matter how many jobs you've done for someone, you're only one failure away from being tossed in the trash-bin. That's very thematically appropriate, I think.

Having said that, I DO like that you can steal a job... but I think it would be cooler if it now became a SHARED job, so that either crew can try to complete it. First in, wins. Loser gets nothing.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that even beyond stealing jobs, having a small pool of "public" jobs that ANYONE can try to complete might add a whole new dimension to player interaction -- and to players trying to thwart one another.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Malme
United Kingdom
Peterborough
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gwek wrote:
Gotta be honest, I know a few people have experimented with different effects for "more solid." I'm not a fan. I like that in Firefly, no matter how many jobs you've done for someone, you're only one failure away from being tossed in the trash-bin. That's very thematically appropriate, I think.


I completely agree, which is why I say "If you Lose Reputation, discard all cards for that contact."

In other words, yes, a Captain who has done more jobs for Niska is looked on as being more reliable, and gets preference; but it still only takes one mistake to wipe that clean and ruin your rep. In some ways, this makes messing up a job even worse, as it might cancel a lot of hard work.

gwek wrote:
Having said that, I DO like that you can steal a job... but I think it would be cooler if it now became a SHARED job, so that either crew can try to complete it. First in, wins. Loser gets nothing.


Yep, my original thoughts were along those lines - to make the stolen job a chase - i.e. the first one to make it active (or perhaps even complete it) wins. The idea appealed to me, but I wasn't sure if that would be too complicated - i.e. where would the actual card sit on the table.

So the version I posted here was a compromise, easy to understand, easy to implement. But if anyone wants to take it to the next step, that's cool, and I would be interested to hear of how they handle the mechanics - i.e. remembering who has a stake in what.

As I type, something occurs to me. You could readily come up with a pair of control counters for each player - active and inactive. When you attempt to steal a job, the card stays in the original player's inactive jobs, but the stealing player places his inactive control marker on it to show they also have access to the job details. When the stealing player actually starts the job, they swap in their active token. That way it is still clear who has the rights to do each job. The first player to complete the job gets the card.

gwek wrote:
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that even beyond stealing jobs, having a small pool of "public" jobs that ANYONE can try to complete might add a whole new dimension to player interaction -- and to players trying to thwart one another.


It might even be fun to have a variant (a story card, in fact) where there are only a small selection of jobs visible at any time (2-3 for each contact?), and they are all public; with no "owned" jobs at all. That would be competitive.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Krubski
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Perhaps the "more solid" requirement would work better for me if you weren't STEALING the job. The way I see it, if you're stealing the job, there's a very good chance you're LESS solid and hoping to prove yourself by stealing the job out from under a "favored" crew.

In any event, I don't see why being "more solid" (or, frankly, even solid) with the contact would factor in at all.

As for the logistics of making it a shared job, it's pretty easy. I would say there are two options:

1) It remains in the original player's inactive jobs with a marker of some kind that the stealing player also now has access. One either player begins to work it, it moves to their active jobs.

2) It is moved to a neutral location with a notation that either player can access it. Once either player begins to work it, it moves to their active jobs.

Personally, I prefer the latter (even with a little Post-It note) because it's less punishing to the poor player who is already losing a crew member and potentially a job.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Malme
United Kingdom
Peterborough
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't want to make it sound like I am protective of my idea - I'm actually perfectly happy for folk to play it however they want to (as if I could stop them!)

But I do wonder (again) if you have actually read my post thoroughly before responding.

gwek wrote:
Perhaps the "more solid" requirement would work better for me if you weren't STEALING the job. The way I see it, if you're stealing the job, there's a very good chance you're LESS solid and hoping to prove yourself by stealing the job out from under a "favored" crew.

In any event, I don't see why being "more solid" (or, frankly, even solid) with the contact would factor in at all.


I think that is easily explained, thematically, by the very first sentence of my first post:

I wrote:
"Before I left the Serenity, Reynolds had a sweet little job lined up for the future. Dare say, if we had a word with Badger, we might pip him to the post."


In other words they are saying to the contact "Hey, we have more history with you, we've done some good work for you in the past, let us take care of this little job for you."

gwek wrote:
As for the logistics of making it a shared job, it's pretty easy. I would say there are two options:

1) It remains in the original player's inactive jobs with a marker of some kind that the stealing player also now has access. One either player begins to work it, it moves to their active jobs.


I wonder where I have seen that idea before. Oh wait, the post you were replying to:

I wrote:
As I type, something occurs to me. You could readily come up with a pair of control counters for each player - active and inactive. When you attempt to steal a job, the card stays in the original player's inactive jobs, but the stealing player places his inactive control marker on it to show they also have access to the job details. When the stealing player actually starts the job, they swap in their active token. That way it is still clear who has the rights to do each job. The first player to complete the job gets the card.


If you don't like the "more solid" concept, then fair enough. But there has to be some limit on a players ability to take a job over and thematically, to my mind, it does make sense that a captain who has done more work for a contact would get preferential treatment from that contact, especially if they are prepared to do the job quicker than the original captain.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Krubski
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Chris__M wrote:
I don't want to make it sound like I am protective of my idea - I'm actually perfectly happy for folk to play it however they want to (as if I could stop them!)


It sounds EXACTLY like you're protective of your idea! And that's perfectly fine! It's YOUR idea!

Chris__M wrote:
But I do wonder (again) if you have actually read my post thoroughly before responding.


Yes, I read your post thoroughly -- multiple times -- before responding. Responses may, at times, seem out of order because I was responding to your literal sentences in the order you wrote them.

What I did not do, however, was go back to the original post, since it was not directly relevant to my response.

Before I continue, and few things about my take on house rules.

1) As I've said elsewhere, when I RPG, I'm happy for things to get as complicated as possible. For a board game or minis, however, I prefer simplicity.

2) Consequently, My preference is therefore for "binary" guidelines (things are, or they are not) and for "figure and forget" (where it is not necessary to keep track of additional information.

3) That's not always the case, though. Sometimes, additional complexity adds to the fun. But that's one of my touchstones when I look at the ratio of cost to payoff. Will the cost of the additional complexity be worth the payoff of extra fun? Is this additional complexity going to produce enough fun for me to make it worth keeping track of?

This was "behind the scenes" in my thinking, but I wanted to get it out on the page so you understand where I'm coming from.

Chris__M wrote:
gwek wrote:
Perhaps the "more solid" requirement would work better for me if you weren't STEALING the job. The way I see it, if you're stealing the job, there's a very good chance you're LESS solid and hoping to prove yourself by stealing the job out from under a "favored" crew.

In any event, I don't see why being "more solid" (or, frankly, even solid) with the contact would factor in at all.


I think that is easily explained, thematically, by the very first sentence of my first post:

I wrote:
"Before I left the Serenity, Reynolds had a sweet little job lined up for the future. Dare say, if we had a word with Badger, we might pip him to the post."


In other words they are saying to the contact "Hey, we have more history with you, we've done some good work for you in the past, let us take care of this little job for you."


The quote you opened with is ambiguous. It does not necessarily imply that the new Captain and the mutinying Crew have a better relationship with Badger than Mal did. It merely implies that they're going to contact Badger to talk to him about the job. Heck, one interpretation would be that the new Captain is going to offer to undercut Mal financially on the job -- Badger is a businessman, after all.

Now, regardless of the quote, I still think that the idea of different degrees of Solid is at odds, both thematically and mechanically, with the game. And then there's the Fun Factor...

1) Mechanically speaking, the core rules are pretty explicit that there's no arc of loyalty for being Solid. You're Solid (which requires one job to succeed) or you're not (which requires a single failure). Per the rules, "You may subsequently again prove yourself useful by completing a Job for the offended Contact and restore your Solid rep."

I'll be clear: this makes sense within the game and appeals to me due to the binary, simple nature of things. Therefore, I'm personally biased against any idea that looks to complicate it. Certainly, I'm willing to explore the other side of the street, but I LIKE it here.

2) Thematically, I find "more solid" to be at odds with both the game and the series. The Contacts are a means to an end, a way to make money to keep flying. With the exception of Niska's Holiday (the exception that proves the rule), there is no effort to create an arc of loyalty with any of the contacts beyond being Solid enough to gain a little advantage.

Same thing with Mal in the show. He never wants to be part of any crime organization. He wants to have just proven himself enough that he can be guaranteed access to future jobs.

Further, I specifically find the idea that you have to be on better terms with a Contact to steal the job to be contradictory to the tone of FIREFLY. Mal is CONSTANTLY the underdog -- which is the opposite of being "more Solid." Further, I find the idea thematically limiting.

3) The Fun Factor: To me, the idea of stealing a job IS fun. The idea of sharing a job is even more fun. So, from my point of view, I'm willing to consider some added complexity to achieve that. So far, so good. Is the extra work of tracking "more Solid" worth it? I would say no, and in fact, I would say the requirement of "more Solid" kills the fun, because it limits when a job can be stolen. Worse, it does it in a way that I find to be counter to the spirit of FIREFLY. My assumption is that most players view themselves as the hero... and the "hero" isn't someone who's working his way up the ranks of Badger's or Niska's organization. It's the little guy who's making daring moves to keep his crew fed and his ship flying.

Thus, it seems to me the most fun if ANYONE can steal a job from anyone. Therefore, to me, there seems to be no reason to track how Solid crews are, relatively speaking.

To me, all it does is limit things.

Chris__M wrote:
gwek wrote:
As for the logistics of making it a shared job, it's pretty easy. I would say there are two options:

1) It remains in the original player's inactive jobs with a marker of some kind that the stealing player also now has access. One either player begins to work it, it moves to their active jobs.


I wonder where I have seen that idea before. Oh wait, the post you were replying to:


Yes, as I said, I was replying to your message in order. I see no need to reinvent the wheel. However, I differ with your apparent opinion that this would be too tricky to implement. I thought it would be understood that I was replying "early" to some of your concerns about the implementation of the idea that you mentioned later in the message. Sorry if that was not clear.

Chris__M wrote:
If you don't like the "more solid" concept, then fair enough. But there has to be some limit on a players ability to take a job over...


Why? I mean, there already IS a limit: you must be in the same Sector as a player who has a Disgruntled Crew member and also a job you WANT. How often is that going to happen out in the Big Black?

I agree that if you are TAKING the job, there should be limitations, but if you are SHARING the job, I think more options = more fun.

If you want a limitation, I would recommend looking at your original guidelines for being able to steal a job.

1) You can only steal a job if you are hiring away disgruntled crew from the other player. Thematically, the new crew member has the details of the job.

2) You can only steal one job per member of disgruntled crew hired.

3) You cannot steal a job if you are only *equally* solid with the partner.

4) You cannot steal a job if it means you will have more then 3 non-active jobs.


What if, instead:

1) You can only attempt to claim-jump (I'm sure there's a better term) a job if you are hiring away disgruntled crew from the other player.

2) You can only attempt to claim-jump one job, no matter how many Disgruntled crew hired.

3) To claim-jump, roll a d6, adding the number of Disgruntled Crew you have just hired. (Thematically, each of them knew something about the job.) If you are Solid with the Contact for the job, add +2.

1-3: Not enough information to claim-jump.
4+: You can try to Work the job... but so can the original Captain.

This way, the limit is on the number of jobs (and you'll note that if you are Solid with the Contact, you automatically succeed) rather than the nature of when it can happen.

Chris__M wrote:
...and thematically, to my mind, it does make sense that a captain who has done more work for a contact would get preferential treatment from that contact, especially if they are prepared to do the job quicker than the original captain.


I think this may be the core of where we disagree.

Although I don't actually disagree with what you're saying, I find it to be a limiting "non-Firefly" statement. Sure, a captain who has worked for the Contact before might get preferential treatment... but when does Mal EVER get preferential treatment? He's always TAKING what he wants rather than politely asking for it.

I feel like the "more Solid" approach closes that door, and it's a door that I very much think should remain open.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.