"Could be worse" advantage

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Exactly my point. Serendipity is not under the control of the player the way Luck, for example, is. Accordingly to use it as the basis of this ability won't necessarily deliver what the OP is seeking.

Except that if you reread the OP it's pretty clear it's being treated as a Player initiated Advantage. Or at least WaterAndWindSpirit is very clearly presenting it that way.

I don't think that is universal or determinative. Characters pay for Allies too, but the GM builds and controls them.

See above "at my table". I've already mentioned off-loading Player Advantages to the Player to control, why would Allies be any different? Granted as GM I have override, but that's the case for pretty much everything.

It appears to me that there is an insurmountable problem of defining the borders of the Serendipitous occasion.

I gave you a perfectly clear use case example. But like everything in a good* rpg, 99% of the rules come down to rulings at the table.



* Granted that we may have completely different ideas as to what constitutes a "good rpg". I like rules, but all rules need to make way for "what works".

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Except that if you reread the OP it's pretty clear it's being treated as a Player initiated Advantage. Or at least WaterAndWindSpirit is very clearly presenting it that way.

The first post doesn't mention Serendipity, but it does seem to describe a player-initiated Advantage. Other posters suggested Serendipity but I thought it should be pointed out that Serendipity as-written is clearly not strictly player-intiated.

I gave you a perfectly clear use case example. But like everything in a good* rpg, 99% of the rules come down to rulings at the table.

Frankly, I thought your examples epitomized the problem I described. Your examples do not explain (1) how you set parameters on what 'normal' Serendipity would provide in a given case, or (2) how you figure out what -20% Limitation worth of problems should remain after use of Limited Serendipity.

Serendipity flexible and potent enough to be used in this way makes every adventure a plot hole. Why is Joe in a war zone instead of Serendipitously on a beach somewhere? Why is he on a dangerous mission going sideways instead of Serendipitously teaching cadets?

When you put the limitation on it you end up with similar questions. Why isn't he laid up with malaria instead of on the mission, or is malaria too much for -20, maybe just flu? Or why does the explosion shred his gear instead of crippling a leg? It could be worse, he could be dead.

[RyanW]

Super Luck (Only to mitigate disaster, temporary disadvantage: Cursed)?

[Hide]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

(...) Frankly, I thought your examples epitomized the problem I described. Your examples do not explain (1) how you set parameters on what 'normal' Serendipity would provide in a given case, or (2) how you figure out what -20% Limitation worth of problems should remain after use of Limited Serendipity.

When you put the limitation on it you end up with similar questions. Why isn't he laid up with malaria instead of on the mission, or is malaria too much for -20, maybe just flu? Or why does the explosion shred his gear instead of crippling a leg? It could be worse, he could be dead.

This is my point. The OP’s idea modeled as a limited serendipity is not well suit to make all “could be worse” situations fall within a “standard result”. For the most part, I think that spending CP (as in impulse buys) is among the best takes (along featuring the wishing modifier).

On the other hand, regarding the example of the guy that survived the grenade, the big difference here is that he had his armor, but also, the the made his move deliberately. He noticed the grenade, and decided to take the hit (this is an extreme situation’s procedure). It’s differnet that having the guy stepping over the grenade (unprepared). I could explain this as having the guy doing a sacrificial dodge and using his luck to tip the scales in his favor.

[Anders]

If it saves him from death I could see Extra Life with some kind of Backlash.

[Celjabba]

My Suggestion :
Serendipity (wishing, +100%, nuisance effect, -variable%)

Nuisance effect:
-5% : small contrariety
-20% : GM choose a bad consequence, cannot physically hurt you or go against the wish objective
-40% : GM choose a bad consequence, can physically hurt you but not go against the wish objective

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Your examples do not explain (1) how you set parameters on what 'normal' Serendipity would provide in a given case...

The parameter is "to add one not impossible thing to the scene" or to provide for "a lucky break in the activity one is partaking off". You know, basically what it says in the Advantage itself.

Add this to:

"For instance I never allow Serendipity to be a "free gimme", but a rather circumstance shift to allow a roll to 'get them out of or decrease trouble'. Or, in 'Serendipity situations' where they are already getting a roll, a use of Serendipity gives them a maximum roll (Frex if faced with a Scavenging roll for find rations and water)."

... and it should be pretty clear at this point?

...or (2) how you figure out what -20% Limitation worth of problems should remain after use of Limited Serendipity.

Same way I would for every other not explicitly defined parameter in a roleplaying (which is quite a lot), by what feels right for the game.

Or why does the explosion shred his gear instead of crippling a leg?

Because the GM says so.

It could be worse, he could be dead.

:|

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

The parameter is "to add one not impossible thing to the scene" or to provide for "a lucky break in the activity one is partaking off". You know, basically what it says in the Advantage itself.

I am unable to find either of those quotes in either Character or Powers. If you are contending that they are merely paraphrases of the text, then I note that your paraphrases ignore the point that the advantage is set up to be under GM control which inherently avoids the necessity of defining parameters.

Add this to:

"For instance I never allow Serendipity to be a "free gimme", but a rather circumstance shift to allow a roll to 'get them out of or decrease trouble'. Or, in 'Serendipity situations' where they are already getting a roll, a use of Serendipity gives them a maximum roll (Frex if faced with a Scavenging roll for find rations and water)."

... and it should be pretty clear at this point?

Various instances of GMs personal rules of thumb don't providing a basis for HOW to define parameters. Also note that your second example there appears to make Serendipity more powerful than Luck which costs the same CP, which adds support to my concern that allowing it to be player-initiated would be unbalancing.

Same way I would for every other not explicitly defined parameter in a roleplaying (which is quite a lot), by what feels right for the game.

Which is what I said -- all you've got to go on is 'feel'.

Because the GM says so.

The OP is asking for and describing something where the player says so.

Originally Posted by Celjabba

My Suggestion :
Serendipity (wishing, +100%, nuisance effect, -variable%)

Nuisance effect:
-5% : small contrariety
-20% : GM choose a bad consequence, cannot physically hurt you or go against the wish objective
-40% : GM choose a bad consequence, can physically hurt you but not go against the wish objective

That looks pretty good, IMO.

[Hide]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

My Suggestion :
Serendipity (wishing, +100%, nuisance effect, -variable%)

Nuisance effect:
-5% : small contrariety
-20% : GM choose a bad consequence, cannot physically hurt you or go against the wish objective
-40% : GM choose a bad consequence, can physically hurt you but not go against the wish objective

Yeah, this is very good. It has the wishing component and allows the GM managing the negative outcome under the scope of the wish.

[Daigoro]

Well, it still needs the Accessibility (Only in dire situations), probably around -20%, and it would still need the Alter Reality if it's retroactive.