Luck: Mundane or not?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

You're not choosing to be a person who has coincidentally happened to have had lots of lucky things happen to them in the past. If that's what you want, then you can write that into your backstory for free. What you're choosing to be is a person who functions differently in the world than other people. Those are two completely different things.

Present is prelude to the future. Point to me the difference between a real life person who got lucky, and a character who had luck at the time? You can't. They're identical (setting aside the mechanical artifacts that are created by flaws in the system). When you choose a character with luck, you are asking the system to FORCE its mechanics to simulate the lucky breaks that real-life lucky people get, just like when you buy lots of skill, you're asking the system to FORCE its mechanics to simulate the high skill characters have. It does this in odd ways that are sometimes counter-intuitive (a character with extremely high skill levels begin to push against realism simply because the system starts to break down its verisimilitude at some point), but that's a flaw of the system.

Immortal people do not exist. People who shoot fire out of their eyes do not exist. Strong people do exist. Charismatic people do exist. Lucky people exist too. Ergo, luck is realistic.

The first arrow that flies at your heart each week will have a much lower chance of striking true if you have Luck than if you don't. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that could cause this to happen in the real world. I know of no real-world causal factor that can alter a person's present or future in the way GURPS's Luck does, and since Luck only ever alters the present, it can't be something real.

Prove it. Prove that there is absolutely nothing in my life that shapes my future.

I don't think you can. I don't think you can know that my future isn't already set, that all my dice are all already rolled and my luck already set in stone. You choose to believe that it is not so, that events can go many ways, that we have choice. I happen to agree with that belief, but it is just a belief. It is not concrete, in the the sense that "1 inch of RHA is 70 DR"

You're basing your argument on the fact that luck cannot possibly real, despite the fact that real life people get lucky. You're saying that luck is in the past, but the past is not privileged over the future. You're saying that people cannot shape their destiny by will, but luck doesn't allow characters to do that.

In the end, you're just left with the murkiness of luck as your argument, but it's not good enough. It IS a good justification for slapping a modifier on it and calling it magical. It's good justification for removal from a gritty game (because you don't want people playing the lucky outliers, but instead you want them in the less predictable hump of the bell curve). But it's not sufficient grounds to call it supernatural.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Real people happen to be lucky, in their subjective judgment of what happened in the past. Everyone agrees with this.

The disagreement is over whether there are any people in the real world who have some quality that causes them, in particular, to be luckier than other people, in the present and in a predictable way. Because that's what Luck, the GURPS trait, gives you.

Ah. I don't think anybody in this thread is actually arguing that there is any real world trait that causes that. Nor is it what the GURPS trait does. When you use the normal form of Luck in GURPS you *the player* uses it, your character has no idea it has been invoked. Meta-game traits, and meta-gaming more generally, is more or less by definition places where this distinction shows through, places where the firewall between player and character knowledge starts to break down, or in this case where the distinction between the simulation engine and the world show through. That's why I'm saying the robot case doesn't prove anything. If the *robot* could announce "I'm using Luck" to the experimenters and then make the next shot more often, then sure, you could probably measure the statistical increase in odds of hitting. But it can't. The robot never knows the advantage was invoked.

It's similar to the debate over whether dodging bullets is realistic. No you absolutely can't dodge specific bullets, but the simulation engine resolves the results of erratic movement *as if you had* and gives reasonably realistic results that way. It's a place the way the simulation rules diverge from the "reality" they are supposedly modelling.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

The disagreement is over whether there are any people in the real world who have some quality that causes them, in particular, to be luckier than other people, in the present and in a predictable way. Because that's what Luck, the GURPS trait, gives you.

I think you're getting hung up on the mechanics here. You feel that, because Luck has an active effect, there must be some intrinsic ability of the character to be lucky. What Luck is meant to represent, however, is that sort of person who - in fiction or real life - tends to get a lot of lucky breaks over the course of their careers/lives. Having the trait doesn't have to make there be anything appreciably different about your character when compared to the others in the group - it just means that when others in the game world look back on your character's life, they are going to see a large number of lucky breaks.

Luck is a metagame construct that allows you to build a character who is (probably) going to get a good number of lucky breaks during the campaign. Because there are people in real life who tend to get a good number of lucky breaks, this isn't unrealistic. Yes, this is something you grab ahead of time rather than something you look back on later, but that doesn't matter - if you really want to, just think of what's going on as someone telling a story about the past - "That orc was the best archer in the whole tribe, but they didn't call Lucky Pete lucky for nothin' - way I hear it, he near tripped on an old root just as the arrow was comin' at his heart, and the thing went right over his head. Lucky Pete heard it fly over and took out his sword and went screamin' into the bush and took that orc's head off before the pig-face could nock another arrow."

[Crakkerjakk]

Luck CAN be a conscious probability altering capability the character has. But it doesn't have to be.

[sn0wball]

One special feature of Luck is that it is not a feature of the character, but of the player. Unless you make it into something psionic, superpowered or magical, which the character can consciously control, the character has no influence on the situation he gets lucky in - this is for the player to decide. It is the player who uses his metagame knowledge about what is an important roll and what is not. In most games - at least the ones I have participated in - the player would usually use Luck to further the game and not necessarily further the characters objectives. From the characters perspective, this doesn´t have to be really beneficial. If you use Luck to hear a noise that will lead to an interesting and potentially dangerous encounter, that´s not even lucky. If the character had conscious control he would probably spend much time in the casino or instead of adventuring were he gets to waste his precious luck for pointless dodging. As opposed to Serendipity, Luck has not the characters interest in mind. From the characters perspective, Luck might not exist at all, since it doesn´t make him more lucky, depending on the choices of the player.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Luck CAN be a conscious probability altering capability the character has. But it doesn't have to be.

Just so.

—

Luck normally falls into a category that stands completely apart from mundane, exotic, and supernatural: "meta-game." Things in this fourth category do not exist at all in the game world, and therefore cannot be judged in terms of their relationship with the laws of nature there. They exist on the same plane as character points, disadvantage limits, and GM fiat, and serve story, not simulation. If you have no problem accepting that all the PCs have the same potential (points) or that nobody in the universe has Talents because the GM hates that game mechanic (fiat), then you should have no problem accepting Luck – it isn't any different.

The fact that Luck costs points like in-world traits isn't a case against this. Luck costs points because it benefits the player, and everything that benefits the player costs points. This includes both things that make the player's character more successful because that fictional person is more capable (in-world traits) and things that make the player's character more successful because the mechanics favor the player (meta-game traits). In-world, there's no way to see meta-game effects, as they look like the randomness of the universe. Favorable ones like Luck are comparable to the "plot armor" of the protagonists of heroic fiction, and enable the player to buy a more-central role in the story, nothing more.

I said a lot of this in the early days of this thread.

Obviously, a player could add modifiers that move Luck into the exotic or supernatural category: Active, Costs Fatigue, Game Time, and just about any power modifier would do this. Then all the arguments about it being a strange ability would become valid. As written, though, Luck doesn't even exist in the game world . . . it just ensures that the player gets to play a slightly more positive story role. It's basically no less cheating and no more exotic than the GM being your buddy and giving you an extra 20 points without telling the other players; it's just more honest and structured than that, to avoid hard feelings.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

From the characters perspective, Luck might not exist at all, since it doesn´t make him more lucky, depending on the choices of the player.

This is a truly excellent point! I have had several players use Luck in ways that ultimately hurt their characters.

"Hey, I have Luck, so I'm going to bet all my money on this mob poker game!" is a good example of the mere presence of Luck hosing the PC: The character ends up sucked into a dangerous and risky venture because the player decides to make a meta-game bet ("Luck will let me win at an ill-advised card game."). If Luck fails to result in victory, the PC ends up broke. Even if Luck comes through, it hoses the PC because mobsters who expected this nobody to lose are now angry and want his head, and the player just used up her Luck on Gambling, so she doesn't have it for Fast-Talk or Dodge or HT rolls. This isn't a hypothetical example – it happened in play!

Then there are dramatist players who like to use Luck to fail mandatory rolls that don't let the player opt out or "throw the match." They want to get spotted, captured, ill, or whatever because they find the idea of that adversity inspiring. It tells a better story. I've had a player use Luck to fail a HT roll to resist disease (a roll I required, because the body fights disease regardless of the subject's desires) so the PC could get sick and have an excuse to end up in a hospital for plot reasons. This didn't benefit the PC at all . . .

Luck is really, truly a case of a player paying points to cheat a PC into a more-central story role – nothing more and nothing less – unless it's given modifiers that turn it into a power the PC can control.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

... Necromancy? My image of you is totally blown :|

Kidding :) It's a commendable move *thumbup*

I think bad necromancy is replying to a three year old post without even acknowledging it. Often a post from somebody who isn't even active anymore. That's like arguing with the dead. Taking an off-topic thread drift to an ongoing on-topic thread, especially for a perennial topic like this, is good necromancy.

I've never really understood the resistance to calling Luck non-mundane. The descriptive text sure seems like a tip-off that something unnatural is going on when you use it *shrug*

I don't have a problem with using Luck to build a supernatural probability alteration power. However "wild" luck is clearly meta-game, and not supernatural. If you extend your definition of "supernatural" to include meta-game (or meta-fictional or even meta-historical) then you have just rendered "supernatural" useless as a label. That's my resistance.

Luck (Active -40%, Game-Time +0%, Magic -10%) [8] is a conscious overtly supernatural ability of the character. Luck [15] is not that!

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

What possible physical process could cause a person to be "lucky" once per week?

Yes the Game Time modifier makes Luck behave strangely. This is because you are tying a meta-game trait into in-game measurable time. Don't do this if you don't want it to work like that!

By using real-time Luck, you are tying it into a narrative condition: how important is the current action. The longer something takes to game in real-time, the more the players are focused on the outcome (like combat) and therefore the more the Luck matters to them. I suppose you could also have Luck that resets after a certain number of rolls, but it's a lot easier to use a Timer!

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

It certainly seemed to start out that way. Maybe it's taken a different tack now.

I don't think so. Flydaran and others (you?) seem to think that Luck can only exist as an overtly supernatural ability of the character. I disagree, and I think that if you call it that it makes actually overtly supernatural abilities (like spells) hard to label correctly.

IMO, metagaming advantages are supernatural too.

Are dice supernatural? Character sheets? Pencils?

More to the point, I think, is that changing the descriptive text does not change the effects.

Well it does say that it's "cinematic". It doesn't say that it's supernatural though. Unless I'm missing something. It really should say that it's meta-game instead of cinematic though! Cinema is only one medium that it applies.

Those are still what the rules say, and represent something that doesn't seem to exist in TRW. People don't get do-overs, and nobody gets to choose to be someone who is 'lucky'.

When Melville set down to write Moby Dick, do you suppose he consciously decided, "This man, Ishmael, has an overt supernatural ability to manipulate chance!"? No, of course not. He decided that he was writing a first person narrative (and really in 19th century that was his only publishable option) and that a 19th century audiences wouldn't accept a first person narrative where the narrator died (it was a long time before you could get away with that!).

If you set out to write a biography of Dan Daly, you will write a story about a man who was born on November 11th 1873 and died on April 27th 1937. You will write about the events on the 14th of August 1900, the 24th of October 1914, and June 5th-July 10th 1918. Daly will not be killed on those days, and instead will perform acts of legendary bravery under fire. This is despite the fact that one can say that there was fairly high probability of those acts resulting in his death when he actually did them. Does this mean that real historical Sergeant Major Daniel Joseph Daly had a supernatural ability to manipulate probability? Of course not!

When Melville set out to write Moby Dick, he didn't write a bunch of books where Ishmael died, and then just published the one where he didn't. When Stephen Scott wrote Sergeant Major Dan Daly: The Most Outstanding Marine of All Time he didn't write a bunch of books about Lance Corporals that died in the Boxer Rebellion, or Master Sergeants that died at Belleau Wood and then just kept the one that happened to be about Dan Daly. You can't expect players who want to play Ishmael or Dan Daly to make a dozen different characters and then only name the one that survives at the end of the game.

Melville chose to write about Ishmael. Stephen Scott chose to write about Dan Daly. In GURPS you can choose to be someone who was "lucky", in the same way.

Originally Posted by Dalillama

Where's this once a week coming from?

The "Game-Time" modifier for Luck.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It really should say that it's meta-game instead of cinematic though! Cinema is only one medium that it applies.

"Cinematic" as used in these parts is never specifically about cinema, of course.

Being metagame and being cinematic are pretty much orthogonal, I think. But Luck being metagame is the more interesting point. And I'm not even sure I'd agree that Luck is cinematic. Even media that is in most respects not what we call cinematic is likely to use it.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Melville chose to write about Ishmael. Stephen Scott chose to write about Dan Daly. In GURPS you can [choose] to be someone who was "lucky", in the same way.

Precisely. GURPS is a game about stories, after all, not a simulation of real life.

"I want to be one of the story's favored protagonists" is the player choice's. There's no requirement that a GURPS character be a schmoe who accepts schmoe-ness . . . the player has the option to take Luck, Serendipity, or another, similar trait and shed that state. Doing so doesn't make the character supernatural in any way – the heroes of adventure stories can live in the same world as schmoes and experience nothing that wouldn't make sense to a schmoe or to us in the real world. The character isn't even aware of the "plot armor" or whatever except in the sense that, looking back at a long career, he might say, "Gosh, a lot of interesting stuff has happened to me!"

Granted, in real life, some people look back at their exploits and claim that a higher power had their back, or otherwise attribute success at long odds and any pattern of beating the odds to the ineffable. Such is their right. But a total atheist and metaphysical naturalist could as easily see that same life as totally within the realm of what randomness allows, and attribute no special meaning to the fact that aspects of that arc could be assigned such subjective qualities as "charmed" or "exciting." GURPS isn't a religious tract, so it takes the latter stance.

Of course, some people prefer simulations wherein everybody has to take the same chances. I can see how that could make Luck seem supernatural. But I don't really spend a lot of design or development time worrying about that, because those same people aren't rolling randomly for starting points, to see who's carrying the gene for a mortal illness, and so on. They're spending points to craft their idea of a good protagonist, which is just as "meta" as choosing Luck for that purpose and stacking the deck via process (dice rolls) rather than by manipulating initial conditions (point build).