Yes, it is partly procedural. Everything has a procedural element. But the decision to spend the point has no analog in the game, from the PC's POV. If it were so then you could spend a luck point right now to make your persuade roll, and I would be convinced.

I'm not convinced.

Q.E.D.

Quote from: Arminius;894612But the decision to spend the point has no analog in the game ...

Rubbing your lucky rabbit's foot?

I don't play fate, but luck or karma points are old, esp outside of level/xp types games as an extra reward. It doesn't totally effect immersion, not more so than rolling dice to hit or something.

Quote from: rawma;894469So you've found restored spell slots and charges for wands and loyal allies and healing surges and luck points in the clothing of dead orcs? And you know no other way for characters to acquire resources than looting dead enemies? Why, yes, you have been doing it very, very wrong.

(Just to list a few of the resources in D&D 5e that are not found in anyone's boots: spell slots, ki points, second wind, action surges, diviner's foretellings, wild shapes, rages, bardic inspirations, sorcery points, channel divinity, hit dice, boons. And downtime days in organized play. You pretty much have to say you're using any of those, and it's just as procedural as an attack roll or ability check.)

Well no, actually. Because with the exception of an optional luck-mechanic, BRP does not use those systems. My reply was primarily to your statement that burning a fate point was no different than using a single- or limited use magic item. One is a game mechanic that operates entirely from beyond the 4th wall, the other is making use of an actual in-game thing that must be found, made or bought in-game by an in-game character (and may or may not very well break the dreaded 4th wall as well , but my point was that you were talking about two very different things).

Quote from: Arminius;894612Yes, it is partly procedural. Everything has a procedural element. But the decision to spend the point has no analog in the game, from the PC's POV. If it were so then you could spend a luck point right now to make your persuade roll, and I would be convinced.

It's the difference between falling off a cliff and just managing to catch a branch on the way down. You clumsily block an attack with your shield, just managing to do it. You are nearly convinced by someone's lies but just see through them at the last minute.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at.

And in response to other comments in the thread, I'm talking about in-character point of view, not immersion. The definition of immersion is contentious and the state is sometimes seen as subjective. By "in-character POV", though, I mean that the action or decision by the player has an in-game analog which would be intelligible to the character. Usually when people start the "immersion" conversation they mean to say that mechanics which violate IC-POV harm their immersion. Someone else may object that it doesn't harm their own immersion; however, that doesn't negate the fact that the decision to spend a metagame resource isn't something the character is aware of.

I gave one real example, however, from a character's POV it is also subject to time period, for example, ancient Germanic people considered being a lucky a real attribute, and for the same way, playing a 21st century person in fantasy times is anachronistic.

Quote from: dragoner;894972I gave one real example, however, from a character's POV it is also subject to time period, for example, ancient Germanic people considered being a lucky a real attribute...

And what is the in character action from the POV of a  Germanic tribesperson to use his luck and how is that different than the tribesperson doing the same thing without using his luck?

Quote from: Bren;894976And what is the in character action from the POV of a  Germanic tribesperson to use his luck and how is that different than the tribesperson doing the same thing without using his luck?

Typical would have been a ritual, as I described earlier.

Quote from: dragoner;894979Typical would have been a ritual, as I described earlier.

If there is a ritual that the character performs to "get lucky"* and if that is what the PC has to do to use his LUCK, then it is (at least somewhat) associated. One should also look at whether LUCK in the system works in other ways like the people think luck in the game world works.

• If LUCK is a scarce resource is "luck" thought to be something one can use up or renew?
• Is there anyway to become lucky?
• Is one's "luck" thought to refresh itself by a good night's sleep or at the start of a new journey or raid the way LUCK might?

Usually the example I use of a somewhat associated benefit is Force Points in WEG Star Wars. Clearly in the movie, Luke can "use the Force." And when he does, he gets a similar effect to a character in the game spending a Force Point (which doubles skills or abilities that round). And the way in which a character in game uses the Force (by spending Force Points) is fairly similar to what we see Luke do in the movie.




* Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

I have seen gamblers definitely look at luck as a finite resource, or at least as in not all in, all the time. The way ancient people thought about it, as well as similar to how Luke uses the force, all seem somewhat related. It can get extremely complex, such as not doing actions so it will or will not affect your luck.

Some game systems go beyond this, and I agree they are immersion breaking.

Quote from: dragoner;894990I have seen gamblers definitely look at luck as a finite resource, or at least as in not all in, all the time.

Not a gambler so I could be wrong on the psychology, but I don't think gamblers think that they actually know exactly how much luck they have at any point in time. So an exact measure of resources i.e. knowing how many LUCK points the PC has left is less associated than some system that either keeps the number of LUCK points available secret or that uses a probabilistic model where the likelihood of you still being lucky decreases the more you lose your LUCK, but there is still some (possibly very small) chance that you will be lucky this time.

For those familiar with Runequest or Call of Cthulhu if we based LUCK not on POW but on current Magic Points (or what is sometimes called temporary POW) and if making a LUCK roll used a Magic Point, then we would have what might be a better model for luck. Even better might be to charge a Magic Point when a LUCK roll is failed. That gives the feeling of the more you try to rely on your luck and fail, the more unlucky you get.

Please introduce me to your gambler friends who believe that luck is resource they can call at will. (Please!)

Remember, we are talking about a belief system, right? A gambler believing in luck is no more rational than any other non-rational belief system. As far as evidence, look at having a woman blow on your dice, or shaking them in a certain way, all rituals to increase luck, which would be a mechanistic way to show it is both something you can call in, and is a finite resource. Whether or not this is shown on your character sheet, or hidden and the GM keeps track of, is irrelevant to the question of it being viable IC action, because reality shows positively that people still do believe and act on it.

Quote from: Arminius;894612But the decision to spend the point has no analog in the game, from the PC's POV.

Depends on the game and what the point represents. I comment more below. But even granting this for a given game, "procedural" is not the word to describe what is lacking.

QuoteIf it were so then you could spend a luck point right now to make your persuade roll, and I would be convinced.

I'm not convinced.

Q.E.D.

Why would anyone use a luck point to persuade someone on the internet of anything, when they could use it for something infinitely more valuable, like finding a quarter on the sidewalk?

Quote from: baragei;894624Well no, actually. Because with the exception of an optional luck-mechanic, BRP does not use those systems.

Your game system does not allow for the existence of loyal allies or reputation or for an NPC to owe a PC a favor that can be called in once but not twice? Or you can't imagine obtaining any of those except by looking in a dead orc's boots? :rolleyes:

QuoteMy reply was primarily to your statement that burning a fate point was no different than using a single- or limited use magic item. One is a game mechanic that operates entirely from beyond the 4th wall, the other is making use of an actual in-game thing that must be found, made or bought in-game by an in-game character (and may or may not very well break the dreaded 4th wall as well , but my point was that you were talking about two very different things).

I said "not different" in that both involve using a resource. It may or may not be the case that using a luck/fate point involves chanting arcane phrases - if it represents magical power, it might, but it might also involve reaching deep within yourself for the determination to do whatever, or channeling the memory of something that evoked a strong emotional response giving a rush of adrenaline, or having a flashback to the Shaolin Temple to gain some kind of guidance and inspiration. And if you're out of fate points any of those things fail miserably if attempted. Like the Help action, where you (should) have to explain what you're doing to Help, not just dryly invoke the game mechanic, you need to explain what it represents in the game world when using a fate point, if the rules leave it fairly open-ended.

Depending on the genre and how they are represented, they don't operate from outside the game world; if they represent some form of divine favor, then you might actually gain such a point from defeating a powerful evil high priest (probably not found in his boot on a perception check, though). In Jason and the Argonauts, "Jason is brought to Mount Olympus to speak with Zeus and Hera. Hera tells him Zeus has decreed he can only call upon her for aid five times." Awesome! Jason has five fate points and invokes one by addressing Hera (generally through the carved figurehead aboard the Argo).

I can see that they're harder to justify if you aren't playing in a fantasy genre (or at least supers or science fantasy or some such), and much more so if they affect things outside the knowledge or awareness of the PC - you can justify being more effective at something you could potentially do much more easily (hitting an enemy, persuading a guard, jumping a pit that's just a bit wider than you can normally jump) than you can justify altering physical facts about the world (conveniently, there is a flame thrower in the lost and found bin under the reception desk behind which you hid from terrorists).

In some recent threads, there was a lot of complaint about Doom/Momentum in a Conan RPG; decisions to save some Momentum for your allies or starve the enemies of Doom don't make a lot of sense within Conan's world. But they seem a reasonable representation of the way the world works in Earthsea.

Quote from: Arminius;894996Please introduce me to your gambler friends who believe that luck is resource they can call at will. (Please!)

You have played RPGs and you've never met a gamer who thought they had lucky dice, unlucky dice, who changed dice when they rolled bad, kept using the same dice when they rolled good, indulged in little rituals like pre-rolling to see "how the dice are rolling", setting the six-siders so six pips faced up before rolling, etc. And lest one think that these players are cleverly selecting between improperly weighted dice, the exact same die might have been a lucky die last session and an unlucky die this session.

It's not rational. It doesn't (so long as the dice are rolled properly) actually change the odds. But it is unusually common among people who otherwise seem pretty rational.