Talkin' 'bout Fate Points, Style Points, Bennies, Luck, etc. And how to use them in ways that don't break immersion.

When incorporating this mechanic into my personal designs I like to follow two rules:

1. Neither invite nor allow the player to add elements to the narrative that his character cannot directly control.

2. Never allow mechanics to rewrite game history.


In my homebrew, players can spend a point to add a die to a trait/skill check before it is rolled. This may represent them taking advantage of some tactical element, some untapped (available) resource, or just a combination of inspiration and desperation. No "oh yeah, just remembered I stashed that atomic disintegrator in my suit pocket..."

For me, rule #2 forbids rerolls. One might argue that a reroll is just a roundabout way of applying a modifier. Yeah, nah.

A third thing to consider is that these points exist to help the PCs show off at times, get through rough spots more often, and -- primarily -- to reward desired roleplay behaviors. So make sure you have a clear vision for your game and keep the reward structure consistant with that vision.

Any thoughts or angry rants appreciated.

Often overlooked, the Dangerous Journeys RPGs included a lot of elements of narrative manipulation. It's Joss point system was pretty flexible. Just when this sort of thing was becoming popular, I already had a lot of experience using it and had a pretty clear idea of where it works well and where it doesn't.

Consider first an example of Joss use given in the DJ rules. A party has been captured by natives, placed in a cage, to be eaten upon the completion of some tribal ritual. Seeing no way out, the players decide to use Joss to get out. After some negotiation to determine how many Joss points is reasonable for such a hopeless situation, the GM arrives at a number: 2 from each player, and they can get out. But two of the players in the group only have one Joss point left. So the narrative is affected thusly, a sudden mudslide occurs, ripping through the ritual site, busting open the cage, freeing the PCs. But the two who only had one Joss to spend are swept away in the mud and now have to be rescued by the rest of the party.

Seems pretty neat. Seems to really expand the possible turns a story could take.

But the reality is that my players would always use their joss prior to getting into a situation like that. A stitch in time, so to speak. So I found the reality is it actually closed off possible twists and turns in the story rather than opening them.

The heart of the problem is when the player earns the points, they belong to the player. They will always serve the ends of the player. Not necessarily the story. Even when they're used as a carrot--do good stuff for the story and you can have one--the player can still find ways to benefit the story while seemingly working against their own best interest but don't really put the player out any. In other words, the system is completely game-able.

Over time, I did find a handful of things that I could allow Joss to do that I felt genuinely improved play while avoiding the pit-falls.

1) In Combat or Critical Situations - I allow bennies to give the character an extra action, however the action must logically fit spatially and temporally with everything else. So you can't take an extra full move. But an additional sword strike that takes a split second and doesn't require movement to reach a new enemy can certainly be added to a 3-second round, for example. Further, this action may be used as if it were a "held" action; pending a speed check, it can be used to interrupt another action just announced.
2) Outside of Combat - Any single skill check automatically succeeds.
3) At any time - Automatically avoid any source of harm--an attack in combat, a trap, even a bolt of lightning from on high.

This gives heroes a little extra oomph while making the game seem less "mechanical" without sending the game spiraling into absurdity.

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926535Talkin' 'bout Fate Points, Style Points, Bennies, Luck, etc. And how to use them in ways that don't break immersion.

When incorporating this mechanic into my personal designs I like to follow two rules:

1. Neither invite nor allow the player to add elements to the narrative that his character cannot directly control.

2. Never allow mechanics to rewrite game history.


In my homebrew, players can spend a point to add a die to a trait/skill check before it is rolled. This may represent them taking advantage of some tactical element, some untapped (available) resource, or just a combination of inspiration and desperation. No "oh yeah, just remembered I stashed that atomic disintegrator in my suit pocket..."

For me, rule #2 forbids rerolls. One might argue that a reroll is just a roundabout way of applying a modifier. Yeah, nah.

A third thing to consider is that these points exist to help the PCs show off at times, get through rough spots more often, and -- primarily -- to reward desired roleplay behaviors. So make sure you have a clear vision for your game and keep the reward structure consistant with that vision.

Any thoughts or angry rants appreciated.

Agree generally.  I don't think in all cases retroactive action is bad, it depends upon the nature of the resource and the element of choice.  Take for example WFRP1.  Fate Points can be used for one thing only, to escape death.  They represent a tangible force in the setting: the Destiny of the character to be useful to the gods in their battle vs. Chaos.  The gods think you might someday be a Mover and Shaker so they might step in now and again to see that you aren't brained by Goblin417. Since they only allow you to escape the death of the character, there is no OOC choice as to whether they are used or not.  So the player has zero effect on the character or the setting through the Fate Point mechanic, it is a completely In-Setting mechanic.

The standard Luck Point, that allows rerolls, is definitely an OOC mechanic, as the player is the one invoking the Luck.  Invoking the mechanic really is a type of 3rd person conversation with the GM about the character, "We know my character is "Lucky", I'm making use of that Luck."

I can usually stomach games which give small amount of these points, as in that case, they usually are reserved to prevent death, so they end up effectively being similar to WFRP Fate points.

But, to me the nature of the OOC choice is probably more important than the retroactive nature.  For example, if I had Luck Points like you describe them, and had to declare them beforehand, they would have to work in such a way that it could relate to the character's choice, stamina, effort, will, fatigue, etc. determining why I get to be better now, and why I know I can't keep doing that forever.

Some settings of course, it's a completely IC conscious choice.  Like Spawn's ability to pull from his finite pool of demonic power, or an Amberite or a priest of the goddess of Luck.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926542For example, if I had Luck Points like you describe them, and had to declare them beforehand, they would have to work in such a way that it could relate to the character's choice, stamina, effort, will, fatigue, etc. determining why I get to be better now, and why I know I can't keep doing that forever.

That's reasonable. Of course, a rules-light game has to abstract these things. For my pulp game I'd pitch it like this:

"As a pulp adventurer you rarely work in pristine "lab" conditions, rather you ply your trade out in the raw and tumultuous field, where you scramble and scrap through one incredible circumstance after another, often influenced by forces you can hardly understand. So your normal skill checks reflect some rough-and-ready, seat-of-your-pants kind of efforts. But -- when you dig deep -- you can tap into an inner reserve of will and resourcefulness and show the world what you're really made of! Naturally, this kind of effort isn't perpetually sustainable; it comes in bursts, so you can't overdo it. But you know your mettle, and when light fades and darkness falls, when the world goes topsy-turvy and your back's against the wall -- you know, with fate's blessing, you can dig deep!"

Quote from: Lunamancer;926540The heart of the problem is when the player earns the points, they belong to the player. They will always serve the ends of the player. Not necessarily the story. Even when they're used as a carrot--do good stuff for the story and you can have one--the player can still find ways to benefit the story while seemingly working against their own best interest but don't really put the player out any. In other words, the system is completely game-able.

Nice post!

Regarding the above point, though -- "serving the story" is not the behavior you want to incentivize. You want the player to be driven by their character's motivations and to selfishly pursue their goals. This is where story is born.

With anything that can alter what happened/is happening we tend to agree that it should be used before the event is set where possible.

Example turning an attack into a miss. Play the fate point before the damage is resolved, or to lessen damage taken. IE: What looked like a sure hit was dodged out of the way at the last second. Or you rolled with the blow to absorb some of the impact and werent cut as deeply as would have otherwise.

Im also ok with using fate points to make plausible things happen. The mudslide example used in the post above I'd be ok with if it was established beforehand that the village was situated near where such a precarious terrain feature existed, or that there had been heavy rains before or even during the use of the fate point. Id also be fine with using the point to notice something that can help them escape. Like a dropped knife just in reach no one noticed till now. Or a bone they can use to open the cage. Etc.

I usually don't use these, but the times I have that have worked ok for our tastes, are where there is something explicit in the game world that they represent.

Example: A powerful/expensive magic protection spell which can influence events, such as a curse or blessing. It can effect one die roll every so often in game-world time, say once per month, week or day, or simply once per casting. It usually involves either sliding a die-roll up or down a point, or a few points, or re-rolling a good or bad result, or rolling twice and taking the best result.

Variation: A sufficiently devout/obedient member of a religion can get blessed by a priest and/or the application of a blessed concoction or element (e.g. special holy water) which confers one or more blessing instances as above.

Variation: There is an in-game-world explicit spirit which is attached to one or more characters, which follows them around and has limited abilities to influence events or mental states through either explicit subtle spell-like abilities (suggestion spell, give notion spell, influence spell, minor telekinesis, minor illusion, etc) or possibly just the same bless/curse effect mentioned before. The spirit's choice is chosen by the GM.

Varation: As the spirit version above, but the player chooses. This may represent the PC's spirit's subconscious view, or the players may actually represent attached spirits to the PCs rather than the PCs themselves.

Variation: There are some sort of unseen spirits or something which go about orchestrating some things, which may be at odds with each other on some or most issues, and are using the PCs and others as pawns/tools for their purposes.

Or the apathy version, where the players and GM don't care and/or don't know and/or don't care to know, and just use whatever luck rules without knowing or caring there's a weird meta-game effect going on. Maybe the GM has a rationale the players have no way to know, or not.

In general there seems to be little problem with any of these as long as the players agree... although I think sometimes the GM says what they intend, and the players may grunt OK but actually not really like it, resent it, and/or lose enthusiasm in the game partly because of it.

I think it helps if the system supports it, also.  For example, in Mythras, you don't compare attack/defense rolls in a Zero Sum win or lose Opposed Test.  Instead you compare Success Levels. Critical, Succeed, Fail, Fumble and if there is a difference in level, you generate Special Effects, like Trip, Disarm, etc.  One of my players balked at that, claiming it was retroactive, since you were rolling first and then saying what you chose to do after.  I explained it's different - think of it as an opening.  When you're choosing Special Effects, the roll hasn't happened, the roll is still in progress - you executed your combat attack or defense with such skill that you created a split second Opening, one you can exploit to try a particular move.  It's not time travel, it's time dilation, you're just slowing the system down a sec to have the player choose that split second exploit.  

With a system like that, it's easy to then do the same thing with things like Luck and Passions because you're in that mindset of "not rewriting, but zooming in to finer detail".  True, they are not the same thing, especially when you are allowing rerolls, but it's easier to rationalize.

I've always had mixed feelings about these things... tending toward hostility when I experienced them in Savage Worlds... but not minding them so much as as an in-game thing in WFRP.
 
I don't think they belong in horror games like Kult or Call of Cthulhu (fuck 7e!) but I am fine with the way they're implemented in Dungeon Crawl Classics, where Luck is a real substance to be gained and lost but still needs to be applied BEFORE the effort is made (and using up all your Luck leaves you open to random mishap).

I wouldn't mind some system of 'strain'... functioning like Spellburn in DCC... where the PC takes on some form of damage to put out extra effort and get a bonus to a roll. Decreasing the temptation to use it on every little thing.

I'll never use them retroactively or to alter things outside the PC.

I really like the way FFG Star Wars gives advantage/disadvantage from dice rolls that then affect the narrative situation mechanically. I think it is genre appropriate for Star Wars. I don't think I would like it nearly as much in a Call of Cthulhu game.

I don't mind players having a very few fate chips in some games. I don't want them to have so many that the dice and GM matter less because "I spend a fate chip" is a constant refrain. Five or six per player in a 2-4 hour session feels like about double what it should be. Even though that's what my favorite rules set that uses fate points gives out.  Maybe the designers run a tougher game than I do, with many more dice rolls to spend those points on.

I play in a fairly narrative style and encourage player input and participation, so I allow #1 in the OP as a matter of course. #2 I don't like, once the dice are rolled deal with the result. Use points to nudge a roll up or down before you see the number rolled. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

I get the impression that Harg and I have very different GMing styles...

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926535Any thoughts or angry rants appreciated.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but if these fate points can't do anything to alter the setting/past, then couldn't these points be handled by some sort of in-universe mechanism. Be it potions, magic rings, favors from a genie, ablative armor, etc. Something like Harry Potter's liquid luck. Actual in-game items carried and earned by the characters that can be used as a one-time bonus when the player feels a bit extra is required.

The advantage, as I see it, would be that it is easier to explain their limitation and gives the GM a bit more control as to when and how these items are handed out to the players. It would also be framed more positively. "Here's an item that can do this cool thing." rather than "here's a point that can't be used to do all these cool things." (If that makes sense).

Quote from: hedgehobbit;926860I'm not trying to be snarky, but if these fate points can't do anything to alter the setting/past, then couldn't these points be handled by some sort of in-universe mechanism. Be it potions, magic rings, favors from a genie, ablative armor, etc. Something like Harry Potter's liquid luck. Actual in-game items carried and earned by the characters that can be used as a one-time bonus when the player feels a bit extra is required.

The advantage, as I see it, would be that it is easier to explain their limitation and gives the GM a bit more control as to when and how these items are handed out to the players. It would also be framed more positively. "Here's an item that can do this cool thing." rather than "here's a point that can't be used to do all these cool things." (If that makes sense).

I think this line in my post serves to answer the question:
"This gives heroes a little extra oomph while making the game seem less "mechanical" without sending the game spiraling into absurdity."

With how I use them, they may indeed be thought of as part of the character's ability set. It's not like there's any good way to quantify luck or passion. I still get to hand out Joss as I choose. But bottom line, coloring outside the lines every now and then enhances the feel of the game.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;926860... (If that makes sense).

It makes perfect sense and is - in fact - an excellent suggestion!

In every game I have tried with these kinds of mechanics, it swiftly pulls everyone out of character and worse people begin to game the meta-system instead of playing their characters. Play should be its own reward!  Luck comes into play with a roll of the dice. If you have some sort of luck spell or power, then increase the odds of success. These kinds of a points/doohickeys are a symptom of a larger problem. Some people want to play a game where game-bits are the ultimate prize instead of in-setting rewards. Games that are insufficient at supporting character power increases toss these mechanics in to make the characters more "heroic" and succeed more often. Worse, it rewards this weird ADD in players who want to push ever forward without creative thinking, risk or forethought. Instead of being challenged by the conundrum of the moment, they instead want to spend a "I'm not engaged point" and "get out of problem free". What's the rush? If you're bored, not engaged or stuck DO SOMETHING. It is truly one of the things I'm enjoying about C&C/Old School is getting back to playing and growing within the context of the adventure/campaign and not as much on the doohickeys.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926650I don't mind players having a very few fate chips in some games. I don't want them to have so many that the dice and GM matter less because "I spend a fate chip" is a constant refrain. Five or six per player in a 2-4 hour session feels like about double what it should be. Even though that's what my favorite rules set that uses fate points gives out.  Maybe the designers run a tougher game than I do, with many more dice rolls to spend those points on.

It depends on the game, but I often feel this way. I feel like it is less intrusive if there are fewer points to spend - even if those points are more powerful and/or immersion-breaking. That is, if I as a player have six points which each provide a +2 bonus, then I'll be thinking with each roll "Should I spend a fate point with this?".

If I only have one point which is for emergency only, then I think about it less. Usually I'll just forget about it unless there is a major emergency when I consider all options.

I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

Quote from: jhkim;926892It depends on the game, but I often feel this way. I feel like it is less intrusive if there are fewer points to spend - even if those points are more powerful and/or immersion-breaking. That is, if I as a player have six points which each provide a +2 bonus, then I'll be thinking with each roll "Should I spend a fate point with this?".

If I only have one point which is for emergency only, then I think about it less. Usually I'll just forget about it unless there is a major emergency when I consider all options.

I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

Yeah, that's important.   If the decision is an OOC metapool point that can't easily be rationalized IC, and can potentially be used to augment any roll, then every time you do anything, there's a good chance your mind will bounce back OOC to consider the metapoint angle and it can become very distracting.

Which is why games that are structured to always have that decision front and center, because the metapoint angle is built into the core mechanics of resolution are basically anathema to roleplaying as far as I'm concerned.  Or, I should say, First person IC roleplaying.  Because to some Third Person OOC decisions are "roleplaying" as well. :rolleyes: