10-13-2019, 12:07 PM | #41 |
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
|
Re: "Could be worse" advantage
Note : I suggested the negative % (-5%,-20%,-40%) with Multiplicative Modifiers in mind.
Playtesting may be needed for adequate limitation % using standart modifiers. |
10-13-2019, 05:20 PM | #42 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
|
Re: "Could be worse" advantage
Quote:
Quote:
Also, since Serendipity has never been taken in any game I've ever been in (aside from myself taking it) I give it my relaxed controls. It's clearly not overpowering, or my Players* would be all over it. And if it becomes 'OP' then I put limits in. * Note however, my Players are a lot like me, they really don't like "per session" and "per [REAL TIME UNIT]" abilities. So... they also don't tend to take Luck either, though because it has a clear usage, it does get taken (the higher the chance for combat, the greater the chance it's a "fifth buy" type item). Quote:
Serendipity at its core is "this feels right". I see no reason to change that just because I put in the Player's hands to initiate usage. Quote:
|
||||
10-13-2019, 08:41 PM | #43 | |||
Join Date: Nov 2016
|
Re: "Could be worse" advantage
Quote:
So, the advantage would be around the 36 CP, if you consider something featuring serendipity (first level) with wishing, +100%; alters reality +75%; Nuisance Effect (bad consequence, no wounding), -20% and Accessibility (only in dire situations), -20%. Quote:
Quote:
With serendipity, the GM must eventually consider a player’s suggestion in order to move forward with the game-session. (Also, it may even give the GM a chance to justify “lenient outcomes” without necessarily fudging dice rolls or bad roleplaying choices). The fact is, that the player and the GM will have to negotiate the serendipity during game-play. No one single handedly activates serendipity; serendipity comes in play when both sides agree it. Sometimes, an agreement over a normal serendipity could involve bad consequences, sometimes it won’t. IMO, serendipity inherently (always) means it could have been worse otherwise; you could say that a situation always works better if you decide to activate serendipity. This is why I don’t think a limited serendipity deserves a discount for a “nuisance effect” or a “bad consequence” without guidelines. If a serendipity is “limited” to bring bad consequences, then it should clearly state what the negative part will be, so it won’t stop the game session to have the player and the GM decide what would the bad outcome should be each time. In other words, said part is not going to be about “this feels right”, it is going to be set on stone, because it was explicitly built into the limited advantage.
__________________
- 画龍点睛。Hide。 Last edited by Hide; 10-14-2019 at 09:26 AM. Reason: Grammar. |
|||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|