Quote from: Lunamancer;871466I think you have to be really careful with a form of luck that "automatically works."

Suppose you have some plan so crazy it just might work. But it boils down to two key skill rolls where the dice just might go south on you. If a luck point can give you an automatic success and you have two luck points, you don't have to sweat this. You don't have to bother with contingencies. Luck used in this way can be "destructive" in the sense it alters behavior and decision-making.

Agreed completely.  The one thing I'd add is that "guaranteed success" Luck also means that, in addition to ignoring contingencies, you can get away with not bothering to stack the situation in your favor.  Automatic success is automatic success, regardless of whether your base chance to succeed is 90% or 0.01%.

Luke switching off his targeting computer was cool because it was unique and (in-setting) a risky move to trust the Ghost of Kenobi.  But if the final scene of every session turns into "I've got two bennies left which will expire at the end of the night, so I'm going to do a triple backflip, land in a one-handed handstand with my back to the bad guy, close my eyes, and bank the shot off three walls before shooting him in one ear and out the other.  *roll an utter failure*  I'll spend a bennie to auto-succeed.", then that just gets old real fast, unless you're playing something like Toon.

Quote from: nDervish;871520Luke switching off his targeting computer was cool because it was unique and (in-setting) a risky move to trust the Ghost of Kenobi.  But if the final scene of every session turns into "I've got two bennies left which will expire at the end of the night, so I'm going to do a triple backflip, land in a one-handed handstand with my back to the bad guy, close my eyes, and bank the shot off three walls before shooting him in one ear and out the other.  *roll an utter failure*

I'd argue that the GM's mistake was allowing the player a roll to succeed in the first place.

   Player: "I do a triple backflip, land in a one-handed handstand with my back to the bad guy, close my eyes, and bank the shot off three walls before shooting him in one ear and out the other. I roll a..."

GM: "Sorry, no. You can't roll for that. You fail."

Player: "Whuuh? Well OK, then I spend my bennies to succeed."

GM: "Sorry, no. A bennie can turn a failed roll into a success. But you didn't get a roll because your action was stupid. So you still fail."

Player: "Waaaaa..."

GM: "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, cupcake."

Quote from: Bren;871526I'd argue that the GM's mistake was allowing the player a roll to succeed in the first place.

I'm the opposite, I'd give each action a difficulty rating and ask the player to spend their points on an action by action basis. They spend more points that way. In fact, anything to get them to spend their points is good for me. Obviously, this doesn't matter if it's the final act and points regenerate completely next session, but when they are carried over then I say spend, spend, spend.

Quote from: soltakss;871597I'm the opposite, I'd give each action a difficulty rating and ask the player to spend their points on an action by action basis. They spend more points that way. In fact, anything to get them to spend their points is good for me. Obviously, this doesn't matter if it's the final act and points regenerate completely next session, but when they are carried over then I say spend, spend, spend.

• Triple backflip
• Land in a one-handed handstand with my back to the bad guy
• Close my eyes, and bank the shot off three walls
• Shooting him in one ear and out the other.

With two bennies, four rolls, and assuming one lucky roll, that leaves the PC totally out of bennies, in a one-handed handstand with his back to the bad guy who he just missed hitting with his triple banked shot.

Works for me.

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159I'm the lead designer of Song of Swords (we're launching soon) and Call of the Void. Around there I'm called Jimmy Rome.

Welcome to RPGsite! What's going to be the name of the author on your games? I'm confused why you'd promote under Jimbojack and Jimmy Rome instead of using one name.

Let's hear more about both your games. Do the promotion dance for us author monkey!!!

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159Now I'm about 60 ounces into my Mickeys, otherwise I would never have had the courage to actually post here,

Dude, you hang at 4chan. This place is Mos Eisley, but 4chan is Dagobah's Asshole.

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159The problem is, bullets mess people up big-time. I'm a bit of a gun-nut myself, and I've shot a lot of rounds at a lot of things, and we really tried to represent the power of firearms of different calibers in-game.

I feel your pain.

40 years  of RPG design says there is no good answer.

D&D lets you get hacked by swords, bitten by dragons, blasted with fireballs and for whatever reason or rationale, you're totally cool until you lose that last HP from your ever growing HP bag. And there's no long term repercussions to wounds, so if you've been stabbed 13 times, just hang around the tavern for 2 weeks and let "natural healing" do its magic.

This model is still the most successful - and most emulated by video games and board games. Is it the best model? Maybe, maybe not, but no doubt it's certainly resonated with players for decades.

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159The question is--is this a design sin?

Have you read and played LOTS of RPGs?

I ask because I'm always amazed when I read about gamers who publish games not realizing they're remaking the wheel from 1993 and then I hear that they've only played a handful of RPGs or less.

My suggestion is to use RPG forums to build a long list of every RPG that uses any kind of Luck mechanic and start researching how each is done.

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159Is giving the player an "out" when the dice turn against him a knife in the back of immersion?

Maybe.

Depends on the setting. FOR ME, immersion is all about genre emulation. Being immersed in high romance space opera is different than being immersed in gritty life is cheap cyberpunk.

I love pirates, but being immersed in fantasies like 7th Sea / Pirates of the Caribbean is far different than being immersed in faux-historical game like Crimson Cutlass.

If your luck rules promote genre emulation, they will promote immersion.

Also as RosenMcStern & Bren pointed out, how a player earns Luck should also be tied into promoting genre emulation.

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159Will it crack that sense of tension when the player realize that the space nazi is aiming at him, to know that he can just spend a luck point and shrug it off?

Yes...unless, the player had very few Luck points.

Quote from: Bren;871355I don't care to ride Pundy's hobby horse,

It's just like tonguing Gronan's pee hole!

Quote from: Simlasa;871396I certainly do not want them in horror games like Call of Cthulhu or Kult.

How do you feel about CoC's Luck stat?

Serious question. It's been a debate point among our crew for years.

Quote from: Spinachcat;871618It's just like tonguing Gronan's pee hole!

Ewwww!

QuoteHow do you feel about CoC's Luck stat?

Serious question. It's been a debate point among our crew for years.

It's as good a way as any to figure out who gets swept up by Mighty Cthulhu's flabby nippers and fed to his mouth tentacles and who, luckily, gets missed.

Quote from: Jimbojack;871159I'm the lead designer of Song of Swords (we're launching soon) and Call of the Void. ...

I've got a question inspired by the Pundit's frequent rants on immersion and the damage that can be done to it by giving narrative control to players. And that question can only really be asked in the context of the game I'm making--Call of the Void. ...

The snag is, it's too easy for players to die relative to NPCs. Obviously X guy's meat isn't more bulletproof than Y guy's, that'd be dumb. My solution for this was to give players "Luck Points" where they would be able to cause attacks to miss them that would otherwise have hit them, either moving the attack to an NPC nearby, having the bullet wing an obstacle, or the gun jam, etc.

Well, that game name has some pretty grim connotations. Always Google your game names.

But OK, CotV it is.

We don't know a lot about the game thematically, to inspire ideas.

So, speaking generically, I would say this:-

(1) WHFRP 1e's Fate Points, which automatically saved you from whatever and gave you your full health back (or so I understood it), really irritated me personally, because of the certainty they gave that I would survive the immediate attack, no matter how well my enemy rolled (and very probably I would survive the fight if I had 2 Fate or more). But they didn't break the game for me, and they certainly didn't break the game for the market.

(2) Personally though I would urge you to avoid any 100% guarantee of being saved.

(3) Start by considering your base system. Would you be happy with a combat system where you go unconscious at 0 HP and start suffering permanent injuries with negative HP but it takes a megashitton of negative HP to actually kill you? For instance you might have 40 HP, a bullet might do 8d6, get shot twice and you're probably on minus 16 HP, that's a punctured lung right there, but you're not dead until you hit minus 100 HP. Your guarantee of survival as a PC in this system is (a) you're not going to be a priority target for the enemy once you're down, and (b) the other PCs will probably rescue you. Personally I would reject this base system because I always want it to be possible to one-shot almost anyone with almost any attack, even if it's a kobold with a broken bottle stabbing an ogre. Who's to say the kobold won't get the ogre in the eye? But if you disagree, and reasonable minds may differ on this, then the base system may be a less counter-immersive place to start than a Fate system.

(4) Whenever an attack inflicts a quarter or more of a PC's HP, or would kill them outright, the GM simply secretly rolls a d6:-
If you roll a 1, the Fates can save the PC for no penalty.
If you roll a 2, the Fates can save the PC but the PC suffers a small permanent or long-lasting injury.
If you roll a 3, the Fates can save the PC but the GM gets a couple of extra enemy mooks to introduce into the fight OR gets to void the next successful attack on one of the enemies (GM's choice, whichever is thematically appropriate).
If you roll a 4, the Fates can save the PC but the GM gets a whole bunch of extra mooks to attack the party in a later encounter (not right away) - i.e. more enemies than the GM had previously planned or would think of as a natural development of the fiction.
If you roll a 5, the Fates can save the PC but the attack hits another character nearby, possibly another PC, at the GM's election (alternatively if that's not thematically appropriate then whatever saves the PC from the attack also causes harm to another character nearby).
If you roll a 6, you are stuck with the base system result (no Fate change).

(5) If the Fate roll succeeds, the GM asks for a table vote as to whether Fate actually intervenes (but the GM keeps the exact Fate dice-roll result a secret!). It's not the player's individual choice. This has to be a secret ballot; probably the quickest way is everyone closes their eyes and votes right hand for yes, left hand for no, then opens their eyes. The GM doesn't vote in the secret ballot but gets the casting vote if there's an exact tie. The player of the PC concerned MUST NOT lobby on this vote. It's literally "close your eyes, vote, quickly or you count as abstaining, thank you, open your eyes", move on. Because it's a table vote you don't have a 5 in 6 chance of the Fates saving you, it might sometimes be zero percent. And people are meant to vote based on what they think will make the game more fun, not based on PCs' personal interests. If the vote is in favour, but only if the vote is in favour, it also costs the PC who's saved 1 Fate point.

These are just ideas. Use or discard as you see fit. I am using a randomised Fate system in the game I'm designing but it's more complicated.

Quote from: Omnifray;871736Well, that game name has some pretty grim connotations. Always Google your game names.

Sounds like a great name for a horror RPG or a fantasy RPG where magic is innately chaotic or tainted in some way.

Quote(4) Whenever an attack inflicts a quarter or more of a PC's HP, or would kill them outright, the GM simply secretly rolls a d6:

Why secretly?

Now I'm going to nitpick rolling the d6. Please don't take it too personally. I realize this is probably something you just tossed out to see if it stuck or clicked and is not something you've probably play tested or even thought a lot about. (If I'm wrong about how much play testing or thought went into this, then you probably see some advantage I missed to this method. So I hope to draw that out.)

1. Only matters if the other rolls matter.

2. Will almost always be obvious when rolled.

3. Voiding a successful attack on an enemy (one option for 3) will often, (and if you roll attack rolls openly maybe almost always) be obvious. And if you aren't voiding a success, how much does it matter if the players know a couple of extra enemy mooks just showed up because you rolled a 3?

4. Even if the players know that this is the result, they won't know when it will occur. (The players knowing a bunch of extra enemies are in the offing is like the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. I think that is a nice metagame effect that reinforces the idea that fate is fickle or that their luck may have run out.) But even if that isn't appealing, if the number of enemies is not "a natural development of the fiction" the players are likely to notice this, so it that case keeping it secret won't really matter as they will find it out eventually. So the only time it really matters that the players were unware that a 4 was rolled is when that number of enemies is fictionally plausible. But since the players didn't know how many enemies the GM had planned in the first place, unless there is some challenge rating limit on what could occur it doesn't really matter that the players know more enemies are in the offing. They don't know now many less was so knowing that there is more is pretty meaningless.

5. If attack rolls and hit declarations are open, 5 will almost always be obvious since the players will see the target switch and if there is a deus-ex-machina save that damages a nearby PC that will often be obvious.

6. Will be obvious because there is no save.

So 2, 3, 5, and 6 either are obvious or often are obvious when they occur. So secrecy doesn't matter for them. And #4 is obvious some of the time, which means secrecy doesn't matter in those cases. So keeping #1 secret  frequently doesn't matter since a choice of not 1 often isn't secret and (arguably) doesn't matter much even if it is secret.

Long way of saying, were I to use this, I don't see any advantage to keeping the d6 roll secret. Is there some advantage you see that I am missing?

And some of us think the whole "immersion" thing is totally overhyped and underdefined.

I never lose sight of the fact that I'm a chubby 60 year old guy sitting around a table with other middle aged people.  If picking up a die and rolling "to hit" doesn't break "immersion" neither does "I'm going to spend an 'Oh Fuck I'm Going To Die' point."

Quote from: Bren;871742Why secretly?

The important time for it to be secret is at the time of the table vote, so that players vote blind as it were. Partly because I think they'll vote quicker than if they have a definite option to focus on. Partly because they won't vote in such a disinterested way if they know the roll. Partly because if they don't know the roll then they won't be trying to work out what that option would/could mean for them and the party. Oh for all sorts of reasons. Also, let it stay secret as long as it reasonably can, so they don't have unnecessary knowledge about what's going to happen. But don't get your knickers in a twist over keeping it secret after the vote.

Quote from: Bren;871742Now I'm going to nitpick rolling the d6. Please don't take it too personally. I realize this is probably something you just tossed out to see if it stuck or clicked and is not something you've probably play tested or even thought a lot about. (If I'm wrong about how much play testing or thought went into this, then you probably see some advantage I missed to this method. So I hope to draw that out.)

I don't mind the players guessing the result after the vote has been taken. That's fine. I mean it's not necessarily ideal but it's not worth breaking into a sweat over.

Quote from: Bren;8717423. Voiding a successful attack on an enemy (one option for 3) will often, (and if you roll attack rolls openly maybe almost always) be obvious. And if you aren't voiding a success, how much does it matter if the players know a couple of extra enemy mooks just showed up because you rolled a 3?

Though bear in mind if two players get Fate rolls in between successful attacks on the enemy (or if the voiding can be postponed slightly at the GM's option) then it won't be obvious whose Fate result led to the voiding.

Quote from: Bren;8717424. Even if the players know that this is the result, they won't know when it will occur. ... But even if that isn't appealing, if the number of enemies is not "a natural development of the fiction" the players are likely to notice this, so it that case keeping it secret won't really matter as they will find it out eventually.

"Natural development of the fiction" could be "natural" due to things the GM knows about and the players don't - the point is, this mechanic doesn't presuppose that the GM has finite resources to throw at the players, rather it depends on the GM's likely choice as to how many resources to throw at the players being changed.

Quote from: Bren;871742So the only time it really matters that the players were unware that a 4 was rolled is when that number of enemies is fictionally plausible.

Like I say, the players don't know what's fictionally plausible because they don't know what secret information has underlain the GM's scenario-planning. Usually the GM has some sort of idea of why the adventure is running the way it is, beyond "this encounter seems like a fun thing to do right now". The GM is altering the behind-the-scenes reasoning due to the result of 4.

Quote from: Bren;871742But since the players didn't know how many enemies the GM had planned in the first place, unless there is some challenge rating limit on what could occur it doesn't really matter that the players know more enemies are in the offing. They don't know now many less was so knowing that there is more is pretty meaningless.

You're missing the point. The players when they vote for a Fate-save know that one of the risks is that the GM will up the ante against them to more than he had planned. So they have a reason to vote against, out of collective self interest (the players' common interest), or indeed in favour if they think the GM's a pansy.

Quote from: Bren;8717425. If attack rolls and hit declarations are open, 5 will almost always be obvious since the players will see the target switch and if there is a deus-ex-machina save that damages a nearby PC that will often be obvious.

Sure but that's fine once the vote's been taken.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871755And some of us think the whole "immersion" thing is totally overhyped and underdefined.

I never lose sight of the fact that I'm a chubby 60 year old guy sitting around a table with other middle aged people.  If picking up a die and rolling "to hit" doesn't break "immersion" neither does "I'm going to spend an 'Oh Fuck I'm Going To Die' point."

And yet you happily immerse in an alternative reality where 60 is "middle aged". What age are you planning on living to, 120? I'm in my 30s and I'm a lot closer to middle-aged than you are. :-D

Quote from: Omnifray;871790The important time for it to be secret is at the time of the table vote, so that players vote blind as it were.

I had forgotten the secret vote. Carry on then.

Have you used this method and if so, how did it work out?

QuoteYou're missing the point. The players when they vote for a Fate-save know that one of the risks is that the GM will up the ante against them to more than he had planned. So they have a reason to vote against, out of collective self interest (the players' common interest), or indeed in favour if they think the GM's a pansy.

I kind of did, didn't I?

QuoteAnd yet you happily immerse in an alternative reality where 60 is "middle aged". What age are you planning on living to, 120?

Aren't you?

Quote from: Bren;871791I had forgotten the secret vote. Carry on then.

Have you used this method and if so, how did it work out?

No, I dreamt it up yesterday, and having a table vote isn't really my style, but I might let things be resolved by a vote of the ref-team if I had two assistant GMs.

It occurred to me subsequently, the d6 roll results I proposed are mildly reminiscent of Apocalypse World (or rather of the Elizabethan Plymouth hack of Dungeon World I once played, DW being itself a hack of AW).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871755I never lose sight of the fact that I'm a chubby 60 year old guy sitting around a table with other middle aged people.  If picking up a die and rolling "to hit" doesn't break "immersion" neither does "I'm going to spend an 'Oh Fuck I'm Going To Die' point."

This, a hundred times over.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871755If picking up a die and rolling "to hit" doesn't break "immersion" neither does "I'm going to spend an 'Oh Fuck I'm Going To Die' point."

Indeed. You have just created another of those "Geezer sez this - your argument is invalid" quotes that we will waive around like clubs.

Quote from: Omnifray;871736(2) Personally though I would urge you to avoid any 100% guarantee of being saved.

....

(5) If the Fate roll succeeds, the GM asks for a table vote as to whether Fate actually intervenes (but the GM keeps the exact Fate dice-roll result a secret!). It's not the player's individual choice. This has to be a secret ballot; probably the quickest way is everyone closes their eyes and votes right hand for yes, left hand for no, then opens their eyes. The GM doesn't vote in the secret ballot but gets the casting vote if there's an exact tie. The player of the PC concerned MUST NOT lobby on this vote. It's literally "close your eyes, vote, quickly or you count as abstaining, thank you, open your eyes", move on. Because it's a table vote you don't have a 5 in 6 chance of the Fates saving you, it might sometimes be zero percent. And people are meant to vote based on what they think will make the game more fun, not based on PCs' personal interests. If the vote is in favour, but only if the vote is in favour, it also costs the PC who's saved 1 Fate point.

Man... seriously???

Are you seriously arguing that breaking the flow of the game in the middle of battle to make secret rolls and then vote on the applicability of fate is less immersion breaking than simply letting the player save his character's arse with 100% chance?

And just as a side note: I have heard lots of experienced WHFRP players argue that it was way too common to run out of Fate Points in a tough battle and be turned to mincemeat. WHFRP is one of the deadliest systems around - 100% guaranteed-save-ass points notwithstanding.