RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

13:08, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Instead of Luck Points...

Posted by badpenny
badpenny
member, 301 posts
eats shoots and leaves
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:23
  • msg #1

Instead of Luck Points...

what if you just allowed a player to declare they succeeded on a failed test, but they had to take Disadvantage on an upcoming roll (of the GM's choosing and one they can't wriggle out of)? (Rolling at Disadvantage means rolling two dice and taking the worst result.)

Karma, being a biotch, means that the player might have to pay that bill all at once (instead of on the installment plan).

I like the idea of moving away from rewarding players with meta points and just putting the choice into their hands: succeed now, but pay later?
This message was last updated by a moderator, as it was the wrong forum, at 16:28, Tue 13 Sept 2016.
swordchucks
member, 1305 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:40
  • msg #2

Instead of Luck Points...

A lot of games call that "succeed at a cost", and are built around it.  Most Apocalypse World based games work that way, for instance.
engine
member, 190 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:45
  • msg #3

Instead of Luck Points...

Seems okay, just unnecessary.

It's something that would need to be tracked, and remembered, and used later. I would recommend that no more than one "held" disadvantage be allowed, and that it disappear if not used by the end of a session. Then again, that makes it just another resource for players to hoard, little different from hit points.

Some people wouldn't like that they, the player, knew that a future disadvantage was held over them. They'd find it difficult to take risks while that sword hung there, even though the character wouldn't know that a situation was any riskier than it looked. Bought-in players could probably find a way around this out-of-character influence (maybe the character has some sense of their own luck), but not everyone is that bought in.

Could players automatically fail certain tests (not trivial ones, of course) in order to get to take Advantage on a future test?

Why not just trade automatic success for automatic failure? Even with Disadvantage, the later roll could succeed. At some point, as a player attempts something, but before they roll, the GM just tells them that they fail. Or, instead of an automatic success, they get retroactive Advantage, i.e. a re-roll. They might still fail, and if they do they still have that future Disadvantage to face.

All in all, though, it seems unnecessary. Better not to roll at all, if failure is that important to avoid, especially since a GM is likely to try to find a worse situation later. If the GM isn't good at finding a worse situation later, then there's not much downside, and the choice becomes obvious.
Merevel
member, 1118 posts
Gaming :-)
Very unlucky
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:12
  • msg #4

Instead of Luck Points...

Hmm, I think it was Roads and Ruins that kept track of natural 1 and such. It let you decide when to use them. Yes, it was preferred that the player used them, and not in trivial ways, because having, bad luck, when ex was dropped would lower the ex received. This used luck as temporary currency so to speak.

I do not think that is quite what you are talking about though. Good luck should not be something the player can just decide to store up for later.
engine
member, 195 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:22
  • msg #5

Re: Instead of Luck Points...

Merevel:
Good luck should not be something the player can just decide to store up for later.
Not everyone's preference, sure, though that's already what hit point and fate points and the like already let players do.
badpenny
member, 304 posts
eats shoots and leaves
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:25
  • msg #6

Instead of Luck Points...

I was trying to channel the Doom pool mechanic from the old Marvel Saga SHRPG.  If you played a card from the Doom suit, the GM scooped it up and could add it to a later test to increase the difficulty.

I think any kind of meta point system has to be tracked, so that's not an issue for me.

The slight difference between meta points and Karma (for lack of a better term) is something you have, e.g. Luck/Hero Points, and something you owe, is that you are free to use it and you can't run out.  Don't use it (let your dice fall where they may) and you don't bring on bad Karma.

I'm a generous GM, so I wouldn't want to trade success for failure.  I'd rather increase the difficulty (as it were) by making them roll with Disadvantage.

Trading failure for Advantage later seems okay on the surface, but...it strikes me as something a player could try to exploit (and hoard).  If a player knows they'll get Disadvantage later, they have a tactical choice to make.  OTOH, with failing now for Advantage later, all they have to do is try to negotiate down the impact of the failure (which could involve whining when they don't get their way) for a clear future boon.

There's no negotiating with future Disadvantage since A) they have a shot (it's not guaranteed failure), and B) if the player doesn't like the consequences, they don't have to use it.

It's not perfect, but it strikes me as more interesting than your standard meta point system.
engine
member, 196 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:34
  • msg #7

Instead of Luck Points...

What's your overall goal, here? One doesn't need any kind of "meta points" (though that's what hit points amount to, for combat), so why have this system? Is the issue with too much disappointing failure? With a lack of tactical choices? What problem are you aiming to solve?
engine
member, 198 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:46
  • msg #8

Instead of Luck Points...

In any case, I hope you give it a try and let us know how it goes.
StarMaster
member, 212 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 18:27
  • msg #9

Instead of Luck Points...

Interesting idea.

The trade would have to be for a specific difficulty. If you choose to succeed on a 'Difficult' task (DC 20?), then you could only auto-fail on a similar difficulty.


Somewhat related to that... I use a pool of Luck Dice for when someone is Lucky (has the ability or feat). The player chooses when to use them, even after a failed roll. When these dice are all used up, the character is now out of luck.

I also use a similar system for Tactics and Strategy, which can be allocated to other characters.
swordchucks
member, 1307 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 18:34
  • msg #10

Instead of Luck Points...

Red Markets uses a stat-based luck pool (so you have to pay for it ahead of time) and then offers the players the chance to regularly hurt themselves in order to gain more.  For instance, if you're charitable, you might be able to give away loot instead of selling it for luck points.  Since Red Markets has a 5% critical failure rate on dice rolls (and critical failures can easily result in your death), having points on hand is really, really important.

It's kind of the opposite of what you're suggesting, but it works well.
Turbo Beholder
member, 8 posts
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 14:35
  • msg #11

Re: Instead of Luck Points...

badpenny:
what if you just allowed a player to declare they succeeded on a failed test, but they had to take Disadvantage on an upcoming roll (of the GM's choosing and one they can't wriggle out of)?
That's one way to do it, why not.
badpenny:
I like the idea of moving away from rewarding players with meta points and just putting the choice into their hands: succeed now, but pay later?
The same could be said about most variations of "fate points" - the player has a choice of when to use/burn limited points.

engine:
What's your overall goal, here? One doesn't need any kind of "meta points" (though that's what hit points amount to, for combat), so why have this system? Is the issue with too much disappointing failure? With a lack of tactical choices? What problem are you aiming to solve?
Generally limited luck/fate mechanics has two uses:
A. To have "safety net" from bad rolls without either reducing overall challenge or forcing to "play safe" all the time, both of which can decrease interest.
B. To model in-universe "halflings/voidmen/whatevers are lucky" trait.

This proposal seems fit for the purpose of (A), if not adjustable enough to be good for (B).
Sign In