Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2020, 06:04 PM   #11
Edges
 
Edges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
Same here.
I'd be very curious to see how Luck could possibly make the game less fun for others. I suppose that in a campaign with lots and lots of PvP, it could be too much of a wildcard to be fun. ("I had him dead to rights and then he undid my hard-won victory with this one weird trick.") But that's so far from my gaming experience as to be alien. And this is the DFRPG forum . . . the game is so explicitly pro-teamwork that adversarial gaming is close to off-topic.
I had to stop using luck in my games.

At first, it was leading to too much clock watching. Players would stall with jokes and cross talk until their luck timer was up. Then they would jump into action knowing they had a safety net. It wasn't malicious. It even seemed partially unconscious at times. But it slowed down the game.

We switched it to x times per session instead of x times per hour. But that just resulted in people packing up and feeling like the session was over when the luck ran out.

We've tried many versions of luck and impulse buys in the hopes of finding something that works. The best we've come up with is impulse buys that regenerate on a per adventure basis.
Edges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2020, 06:23 AM   #12
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges View Post

I had to stop using luck in my games.
Yes, it sounds as if Luck wasn't a good match to you or your expectations for the game, or to your players or their expectations for the game . . . one of those. I can understand that. In my position, I collect a lot of anecdotes from players, and I've found that there are a lot of traits like that. Luck is far from being the worst offender; I hear a lot more about HT in excess of 13 or 14 leading to de facto immortals, high Charisma creating social super-beings, Magery 0 "switching on" magic use for a mere 5 points being too good, Combat Reflexes being so cost-effective that everybody takes it, and a number of other things.

I suppose the reason why Serendipity is easier to manage than Luck is that Serendipity's effects are essentially non-mechanical and left to the GM in the first place. On the other hand, that requires an experienced referee of RPGs, whereas Luck's mechanics require nothing but a clock or a timer, which newcomers to RPGs might find easier; there are quite a few games that use an egg timer or little hourglass, and people new to RPGs but not to games are actually more likely than seasoned players of RPGs to limit turn duration. And the DFRPG was aimed at newcomers to RPGs, not at old hands, never mind veteran GURPS players.

For those who are more experienced, I agree that GURPS Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys might be a better model. Get rid of both Luck and Serendipity, replacing their effects with Buying Success and Player Guidance, respectively. That makes the whole thing fairly mechanical, ties it to a limited resource, and removes all concerns about clock-watching. But I think introducing another resource to track (on top of HP, FP, ER, arrows, healing potions, etc.) would've been an error for the DFRPG, given its target audience.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2020, 08:55 AM   #13
Kallatari
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges View Post
At first, it was leading to too much clock watching. Players would stall with jokes and cross talk until their luck timer was up. Then they would jump into action knowing they had a safety net. It wasn't malicious. It even seemed partially unconscious at times. But it slowed down the game.

We switched it to x times per session instead of x times per hour. But that just resulted in people packing up and feeling like the session was over when the luck ran out.
I only had one player who ever watched the clock for his Luck, but it slowed things down for everyone. Which is why I switched Luck from meta-time (i.e., real world time) to in-game time.

Luck eventually became a resource, worth 4 points per level Edit (Level = # of times you can use Luck to reroll), and it replenishes at the rate of 1/week of in-game time - so basically, they are useful on a per adventure basis, and sometimes per multiple adventures if the adventures happen one right after the other. While outside the scope of Dungeon Fantasy, there are enhancements to improve the recharge rate. Therefore, for an "Improved Luck" at 12 points per level, your Luck recharges at the rate of 1 per day, which is still only useful on a per-adventure rate, but at least pretty much guarantees they will all be replenished for the next adventure.

(To really get the details, I took this approach from a Pyramid article, which I think was called "Destiny Points" or something similar.)

I determine a maximum number of levels of Luck based on how cinematic I want my games to be. I usually cap it at 6, but for Dungeon Fantasy style games I allow up to 12 levels.

As Kromm said, it's an additional resource to track, especially when the weekly recharge rate stretches over multiple adventures, but it works for me and my players.

Last edited by Kallatari; 03-19-2020 at 08:59 AM.
Kallatari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2020, 10:04 PM   #14
tbone
 
tbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
I hear a lot more about HT in excess of 13 or 14 leading to de facto immortals . . .
Small tangent: Perhaps HT death checks would be a good place to adopt that "Rule of 13" that's used for Fright Checks?

Back to topic: I suppose another way to game Luck's "clock" would be to go with "one use per x 'scenes'". But then that raises the question of what constitutes a 'scene', a concept that GURPS/DFRPG don't take up in the way some games do.
__________________
T Bone
GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com

Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated)

(Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.)
tbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2020, 06:03 AM   #15
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post

Perhaps HT death checks would be a good place to adopt that "Rule of 13" that's used for Fright Checks?
I really disagree. I think most of the reason to buy HT is to not die, so capping the not-dying effect strikes me as the wrong approach. It isn't a personal problem for me, the designer, that PCs can buy Death Insurance . . . it's just something I hear about a lot. Game Masters who like dead PCs and the chaos that brings to the gaming table could house-rule otherwise.

Now I could get behind something like "failure by 1 or 2, or any roll of 14+ (even if technically a success), means you collapse with a mortal wound." The main effect there would be to increase the importance of Stop Bleeding.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2020, 08:23 AM   #16
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
Small tangent: Perhaps HT death checks would be a good place to adopt that "Rule of 13" that's used for Fright Checks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
I really disagree. I think most of the reason to buy HT is to not die, so capping the not-dying effect strikes me as the wrong approach. It isn't a personal problem for me, the designer, that PCs can buy Death Insurance . . . it's just something I hear about a lot. Game Masters who like dead PCs and the chaos that brings to the gaming table could house-rule otherwise.

Now I could get behind something like "failure by 1 or 2, or any roll of 14+ (even if technically a success), means you collapse with a mortal wound." The main effect there would be to increase the importance of Stop Bleeding.
A solution that might ameliorate the perceived problem would be to use a 'Rule of 13' for consciousness checks and other HT checks related to wounds, such as those for crippling.

That would, of course, make cleric/paladin-analogues or other solutions for field-expedient healing even more vital, which may or may not be a desired feature in DFRPG.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2020, 09:42 AM   #17
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
Small tangent: Perhaps HT death checks would be a good place to adopt that "Rule of 13" that's used for Fright Checks?
https://gamingballistic.com/2013/04/...ce-of-fitness/

This is one of my "break it all open" posts from a while back, written after looking at HT and fitness and action points and whatever.

There's another one out there called "Defend vs DEATH" where I take the thing above and muse about treating death checks as Active Defenses: roll 3+HT/2.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2020, 10:44 AM   #18
tbone
 
tbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Serendipity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
I really disagree. I think most of the reason to buy HT is to not die, so capping the not-dying effect strikes me as the wrong approach. It isn't a personal problem for me, the designer, that PCs can buy Death Insurance . . . it's just something I hear about a lot. Game Masters who like dead PCs and the chaos that brings to the gaming table could house-rule otherwise.
It's not something I'd want, either. (I really like non-dead PCs.) But for those gamers you hear from who have some problem with all those successful death rolls, Rule of 13 would be an easy, existing mechanic they could throw at the "problem". (With "14+ means mortal wound" as a nice further tweak, as you note.)
__________________
T Bone
GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com

Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated)

(Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.)
tbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2020, 08:30 PM   #19
dcarson
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Re: Serendipity

Mostly Luck is used to save PCs. I have seen it used at the end of a arc to make sure the big bad goes down fast or doesn't escape. This meant in one pulp campaign the big bad changed from the guy I thought it was when I started running to someone behind the scenes using a string of disposable fronts.
dcarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 02:51 PM   #20
Dalin
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Default Re: Serendipity

Update: The lucky PC started with only one level of Serendipity (instead of his original idea of three) but has now purchased a second level with earned character points. (He also has Ridiculous Luck.) I made a one-page handout for both the player and me to reference. It included the description of the advantage, Kromm's post from this thread, and the Last Ditch text (Exploits, p. 90). The only adjustment that we agreed on was to not allow banking uses from game to game. Mostly that's just a bookkeeping annoyance.

Mostly, it has added some flair to his character and seems fun for most of us. Lots of lucky breaks in terms of already knowing random NPCs that the party runs into, knowing useful rumors, finding things that he needs (kinda like Gizmo), and things like that. When I'm on the ball in terms of planning, I find it quite useful: it gives me an easy way to provide clues, contacts, etc. without obsessing over verisimilitude. There have been a few times where we used it clumsily, but that's true with any mechanic that requires on-the-fly judgment calls.

In our most recent session, the lucky PC did something that might drive some GMs crazy. The party was being challenged with riddles from a mischievous faun. The lucky PC declared that he had serendipitously heard the riddle before. Personally, I thought this was pretty clever and within the purview of the advantage. I let the players come up with their own answer anyway (riddles are really for the players, right?) but confirmed that their answer was right before they relayed it to the faun. I figure that this might have been frustrating if I had spent hours coming up with the ultimate riddle for a climactic encounter... but I would never use a riddle as a plot-gate since people occasionally fail to figure them out. As it was, I had a list of other riddles that I could use if it made sense for the riddle game to continue, and the whole episode was optional.

He just added the second level of the advantage, so we'll see how that goes in the coming weeks.
Dalin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
serendipity

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.