Luck as a Characteristic

[Frenchman]

Some of you may remember last week or so I posted a thought about adding Luck as a 9th primary characteristic. Well, I finished the Template I promised, so here that is.

For those just tuning in, here are the changes I've made and why. Keep in mind I intend this for Heroic level games, and I don't really think it would be too appropriate for Super-heroic level ones.

STR - I've made it costs 2 for one. I think STR is way to cost-effective at 1-per in heroic genres, and I wanted to 'streamline' all the physical stats so they all cost 2 points.

DEX - Biggest changes here - I reduced the cost to 2 per, changed CV calculation to DEX/6+LUCK/6, and un-linked speed from it. The last was kinda hard for me, because I like the idea of DEX being linked to Speed, but in practice it never was.

EGO - I reduced the cost to 1-per. Partly because I wanted all the 'mental' characteristics to have the same cost, partly because I don't feel that Mental Defense is as useful in Heroic-level games because Mental Powers are pretty rare most of the time, and partly because I change the ECV calculation to EGO/6+LUCK/6.

Speed - Removed DEX from the equation. Characters start with a 3 speed base, and can increase it normally.

LUCK - The whole point of the exercise. Costs 2 points per point of luck, and luck gives Luck/5 dice of luck dice and also adds 1/6th of its value to OCV, DCV, and ECV.

Gambling - I changed it so that it is based on Luck instead of INT.

Luck - I removed the Luck power, since it is now redundant.

DI, Growth, and TK - I doubled the cost of these powers to reflect the increased cost of STR.

Thats about it, I guess.

Here's the Template, I'm gonna see if I cant get a chance to test it out soon.

Have any thoughts? Please let loose.

[SladeThirteen]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

woot! something new for the newb to play with... i'm going to do two versions of my character for the scifi game coming up... one in the default, and another in this set up... fun.

 

thanks frenchy.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I'll stay out of the issue regarding increasing the cost of STR, but I do notice that you effectively doubled the cost of Luck. Is this because Luck now adds to CV? Does Luck do anything else?

 

A note on Gambling: The actual Skill should not be based on Luck. being something of a gambler myself, there is little actual luck involved in how you play. Everything is calculated. You know the odds, you know what to do, and you know how to make the other players do what you need them to in order for you to win. There is luck/chance involved, but the actual skill in playing has nothing to do with luck.

 

Luck may help though. Perhaps allowing a Luck Roll as a complimentary skill to gambling...

[Frenchman]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I'll stay out of the issue regarding increasing the cost of STR' date=' but I do notice that you effectively doubled the cost of Luck. Is this because Luck now adds to CV? Does Luck do anything else?[/quote']

 

Yes, I did double the cost of luck because it now adds to CV - you got it exactly. Someone could always buy it with a -1 limitation Only for Luck Dice.

 

A note on Gambling: The actual Skill should not be based on Luck. being something of a gambler myself, there is little actual luck involved in how you play. Everything is calculated. You know the odds, you know what to do, and you know how to make the other players do what you need them to in order for you to win. There is luck/chance involved, but the actual skill in playing has nothing to do with luck.

 

Luck may help though. Perhaps allowing a Luck Roll as a complimentary skill to gambling...

The majority of gambling I've done has been with cards and dice - and to me it seems that the large part of winning is based on what cards you get and/or what you roll - your intelectual skill can only affect the outcome so much - or rather so little. Luck deals you 5 cards out of 52, and your concious choice allows you to exchange some of those for another random draw. To me, seems like luck is doing more there.

I'd say allow an INT roll as a complimentary skill...but opinions vary.

Heres a copy without the gambling adjustment if you like.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

The majority of gambling I've done has been with cards and dice - and to me it seems that the large part of winning is based on what cards you get and/or what you roll - your intelectual skill can only affect the outcome so much - or rather so little. Luck deals you 5 cards out of 52, and your concious choice allows you to exchange some of those for another random draw. To me, seems like luck is doing more there.

I'd say allow an INT roll as a complimentary skill...but opinions vary.

Heres a copy without the gambling adjustment if you like.

 

I think the less skilled you are, the more luck matters. Professional poker players may lose in the short term due to luck, but keep playing and the professional will ultimately win back his losses and more. Why? Because, over time, random chance evens out.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

The majority of gambling I've done has been with cards and dice - and to me it seems that the large part of winning is based on what cards you get and/or what you roll - your intelectual skill can only affect the outcome so much - or rather so little. Luck deals you 5 cards out of 52, and your concious choice allows you to exchange some of those for another random draw. To me, seems like luck is doing more there.

I'd say allow an INT roll as a complimentary skill...but opinions vary.

Heres a copy without the gambling adjustment if you like.

 

As Hugh say (or implies), luck only favors the unskilled. Luck always plays a factor of course, which is why the skilled don't always win, but the skilled usually win because they know what they're doing and know the game (particularly poker) isn't about what cards are in your hand, it's about what cards you can make the other players think are in your hand.

[Vondy]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Yes, I did double the cost of luck because it now adds to CV - you got it exactly. Someone could always buy it with a -1 limitation Only for Luck Dice.

 

 

The majority of gambling I've done has been with cards and dice - and to me it seems that the large part of winning is based on what cards you get and/or what you roll - your intelectual skill can only affect the outcome so much - or rather so little. Luck deals you 5 cards out of 52, and your concious choice allows you to exchange some of those for another random draw. To me, seems like luck is doing more there.

I'd say allow an INT roll as a complimentary skill...but opinions vary.

Heres a copy without the gambling adjustment if you like.

 

It may seem that way on the surface, but most card games have clear statistical odds to them and successful gamblers (over the long run) are the scientific one's who keep track of the numbers and implement a system accordingly. The same is true of roullette, which has several strategies that will provide more wins than losses over a period of time. Sure, you can miscalculate and blow it, but that's where the skill comes into play. I have an uncle who made a very good living as a professional gambler (cards) - and he was one of the most unlucky men I've ever met.

[Frenchman]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Yes, and in the real world where there is no such thing as luck in the sense that there is in many games, that is true. But when one person has better luck than another person, then the odds don't even out over the long run - thats what being lucky is all about.

[kjamma4]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

The same is true of roullette' date=' which has several strategies that will provide more wins than losses over a period of time.[/quote']

 

Most of those strategies involve doubling your bet when you are losing. Unfortunately, most gambling places invoke an absolute maximum to the amount you can bet which nullifies this strategy.

 

Given the constraints of the "house", roulette over the long run is a losing game (as is every game at a casino - otherwise the casino would implement "rules" which would make them so.)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Yes' date=' and in the real world where there is no such thing as luck in the sense that there is in many games, that is true. But when one person has better luck than another person, then the odds don't even out over the long run - thats what being lucky is all about.[/quote']

Use a Luck Roll (characteristic based, or using Luck dice) as a complimentary roll to Gambling. While the major factor for any gambler is knowledge of statistics and probability, having a really lucky person at the table will skew the odds. Trust me, I know this story. Not to brag, but I'm a rather good tactician and strategist, and I'm fairly good at calculating the odds in games... yet my ex-girlfriend, who consistantly makes the most foolish decisions, is prone to betting it all on a single go just because she feels like it beats me more often than not. I would have accused her of just cheating, but in several cases she didn't even understand the games well enough to cheat effectively; she's just that lucky (at least with dice).

 

She's a special case though. She doesn't have the Gambling Skill, she just has a high Luck, high enough to compete with people who do have the Gambling Skill.

[zornwil]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Guys, I think we're losing focus a bit when talking about why gambling should or shouldn't be luck-based and resorting to the real world. The question is really how the desire is for gambling to work in Frenchman's particular game world. Not to say that the real world info isn't useful as an FYI, but we should keep it to that, in my view, and to me that discussion is off the table except to say "that's not realistic, but I assume you don't want it to be realistic." Just my 2 cents on it.

 

As to the actual house rules, wow, interesting, I don't think much can be added in terms of advising because it so departs from the norm that all sorts of ripples will occur. But that's not bad, it's clearly the intent to reshape HERO here on the significant side. The only real advice I guess I would have is to be sure the players realize this is experimental and subject to change, so they don't complain if you find stuff is broken and needs repair.

 

Please do tell us how this works out, I"m really eager to here if it creates the play experience you are intending.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I'm echoing Zornwil, and am interested in how the game develops.. Keep us Posted, eh?

 

-CraterMaker

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I yield to zornwil's mighty reptilian mind.

 

Gambling based on Luck asside, making Luck a Characteristic looks like a fun and exciting idea and one I'd be open to depending on the genre/setting of the campaign.

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Besides... should the skill levels count for the amount of knowledge about the game... or even Science Skill: Statistics as a roll to assist your luck-based gambling?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I just don't see luck factoring as heavily as dex in CVs.

 

If that were true in the real world, the NFL scouting combines would have all the recruits rolling dice and drawing cards in addition to the strength and agility drills...

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I think in the real world luck also tends to be a bit more specific. You don't get many people who are lucky at every thing. You have people who are lucky at card games, or at getting the last seat on the bus, or beginner's luck. I don't think dodging luck would be found in the same person who was lucking at poker.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I just don't see luck factoring as heavily as dex in CVs.

 

If that were true in the real world, the NFL scouting combines would have all the recruits rolling dice and drawing cards in addition to the strength and agility drills...

That, and in a game environment, luck is represented by the rolling of dice. It's already factored in.

 

It all depends on the specific game though. If the game this is designed for puts a lot of weight on people being lucky, it's fair to have a Luck stat skew the odds. Knowing nothing of the actual game this is intended for, I can't say if it's appropriate or not. For not I'll assume it is.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

The other thing that bugs me about the implementation is that luck is constant.

 

If someone were consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest, that would be the effect of buying applicable combat levels.

 

Luck should (IMO) not have a constant and reliable effect.

[zornwil]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

The other thing that bugs me about the implementation is that luck is constant.

 

If someone were consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest, that would be the effect of buying applicable combat levels.

 

Luck should (IMO) not have a constant and reliable effect.

Although as a related aside, we had a PC, the player only getting to play twice unfortunately, named Dice whose whole thing was luck. He had some Luck dice, naturally enough, but he was built mainly with an MP that had a series of slots. The slot was selected randomly whenever he wanted to deal with a problem. It was a quick construct so we didn't really write it up the best way, but anyway it was a good and fun way to run Luck, because it combined the idea that he was always lucky with the idea that he had no real control over how it played out in any detail. Basically when he rolled up a power he had to deal with making that fit the situation (as GM, I had to react as well). It was a lot of fun.

[Frenchman]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Sorry I haven't posted in a few days - had a presentation on Albert Camus to prepare for.

 

As to the actual house rules, wow, interesting, I don't think much can be added in terms of advising because it so departs from the norm that all sorts of ripples will occur. But that's not bad, it's clearly the intent to reshape HERO here on the significant side. The only real advice I guess I would have is to be sure the players realize this is experimental and subject to change, so they don't complain if you find stuff is broken and needs repair.

 

Please do tell us how this works out, I"m really eager to here if it creates the play experience you are intending.

 

Those ripples are what I'm really interested in. I chose Luck because it came up in a conversation about different gaming systems and I wanted the statistic to affect CVs. I had also thought about dividing DEX in two, as Agility and Co-Ordination (or something) but decided on Luck because it changes the break-points so much. With (DEX+LUCK)/6 the break point for DEX changes depending on what your Luck is.

 

I just don't see luck factoring as heavily as dex in CVs.

 

I do. In the real world one can make a very good argument that luck doesn't exist (I happen to believe otherwise), but I don't play games set in the real world - it sorta defeats the purpose of playing a game for me. Why else would people speak of things like a "lucky shot?"

 

If that were true in the real world' date=' the NFL scouting combines would have all the recruits rolling dice and drawing cards in addition to the strength and agility drills...[/quote']

I think in the real world luck also tends to be a bit more specific. You don't get many people who are lucky at every thing. You have people who are lucky at card games' date=' or at getting the last seat on the bus, or beginner's luck. I don't think dodging luck would be found in the same person who was lucking at poker.[/quote']

 

You both kinda address the same point - that someone lucky with one thing (dice) isn't neccessarily lucky with something else (cars). By the same token, someone who is agile or graceful may not be co-ordinated or dexterous, and smart people are rarely (in my experience) very perceptive. I would think it'd be perfectly OK, or even pretty neat, if a character were to buy things like +10 Luck, Only with Money, or +10 Luck, Not with Women.

 

The other thing that bugs me about the implementation is that luck is constant.

 

If someone were consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest, that would be the effect of buying applicable combat levels.

 

Luck should (IMO) not have a constant and reliable effect.

 

Luck being random is a tradition, a Sacred Cow if you will, of role-playing games. In many computer/console RPGs luck does function as a constant - and in others it doesn't. Since luck cannot be quantified or qualified in the real world, there is no 'right' way to quantify or qualify it in a game system. At least not if you ask me.

That said, I have kept some of the aspects of luck being random - with Luck Dice and (in my planned game) bonuses to other skills. While it would be possible to have the part of Luck which figures into CV to be randomized (roll dice to see if/how much of it you get before every attack roll...) it would be far more trouble than its worth.

If someone is "consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest" that could be the result of skill levels. Or maybe they're just lucky. Someone who really was luckier would have better results on average.

As for its predictable effect on combat: I would argue that the changes I made make characters and the initiative order, at least, more unpredictable over the long view. DEX uniformity won't be an issue.

For example, a quick look at the heroic characters in the back of ReFred shows me that the average Characteristic score for any one characteristic is 13.54. Their average DEX is 16.33. Where other characteristics range from 8-20, DEX ranges only 14-20 - half the spread. This leads me to conclude (well, actually I allready concluded this a long time ago from looking at the characters in my group) that DEX is far too valued, characters (and monsters) tend to cluster near the top of the DEX scale, and certain character concepts (low-dex ones) are not valid.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I do. In the real world one can make a very good argument that luck doesn't exist (I happen to believe otherwise)' date=' but I don't play games set in the real world - it sorta defeats the purpose of playing a game for me. Why else would people speak of things like a "lucky shot?"[/quote']

 

In the real world, we can calculate probability using the science of statistics. Any event that falls outside the realm of probable could be called lucky (or unlucky for events that are harmful). In a fictional world, there is no such thing as probability, and the science of statistics is worthless. Every event is determined by the author. Anything that is called a "lucky shot" really isn't lucky at all, since the author had predetermined it would happen. In a game, which takes place in the real world, we determine the results of unpredictable events with dice. In your game world, there is something called luck which improves the chances of successfully beating someone up and decreases the chances of some successfully beating you up (and it also makes you a better poker player should you pursue such endevors). Whatever this something called luck is, it carries equal weight in improving your chances of beating people up (and blah blah blah) as natural reflexes do. So someone who had no DEX, but lots of LUCK, will have the same chances of hitting a particular target as a character that has no LUCK but lots of DEX. This seems weird to me, but perhaps it's a weird campaign. Or perhaps it may just be weird to me. As I said, it's your world, and if this is how you want it to work, then you've done a fine job and everybody should really cut you some slack. If it's not what you want, well then there's this drawing board thing you need to get back too...

[CraterMaker]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Sorry I haven't posted in a few days - had a presentation on Albert Camus to prepare for.

 

 

 

Those ripples are what I'm really interested in. I chose Luck because it came up in a conversation about different gaming systems and I wanted the statistic to affect CVs. I had also thought about dividing DEX in two, as Agility and Co-Ordination (or something) but decided on Luck because it changes the break-points so much. With (DEX+LUCK)/6 the break point for DEX changes depending on what your Luck is.

---------snip<

 

You know, that is pretty clever - if you'd made it (DEX/3+LUCK/3) it would've been the same breakpoints as usual, but DEX+LUCK/6 does make an interesting adjustment to how you'd buy DEX..

 

If I make any major twists to a game, I've got to remember this.

 

-CraterMaker

[Frenchman]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Whatever this something called luck is' date=' it carries equal weight in improving your chances of beating people up (and blah blah blah) as natural reflexes do. So someone who had no DEX, but lots of LUCK, will have the same chances of hitting a particular target as a character that has no LUCK but lots of DEX.[/quote']

I don't really see what you find strange about this. Personally I don't particularly see any greater connection between Intelligence and Perception, or Dexterity and most Dex-based skills like Atheletics, Breakfall, Stealth, or the ability to dodge attacks.

[Warp9]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I think the less skilled you are' date=' the more luck matters.[/quote']

I would apply this statement to pretty much everything, not just gambling.

 

If it is really a contest between on somebody who is very skilled but unlucky, VS somebody who is very lucky but unskilled, I'd put my money on skill. This is especially true if the contest requires you to have consistent results.

 

One "lucky" shot? Yes.

 

Twenty "lucky" shots in a row? No.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I do. In the real world one can make a very good argument that luck doesn't exist (I happen to believe otherwise), but I don't play games set in the real world - it sorta defeats the purpose of playing a game for me. Why else would people speak of things like a "lucky shot?"

 

There is luck and there is skill. When Michael Jordan hits a long jumpshot, we marvel at his skill. When Joe nobody who shoots 9.6% from the floor hits a long jumpshot, we call it a lucky shot.

 

Michael Jordan is consistantly good. He is best defined as high dex and lots of applicable levels. Joe Nobody is consistantly bad but occasionally gets lucky. He is best defined as low dex, no applicable levels and some luck (which in a sensible implementation ought not to be reliable)

 

If luck were reliable and constant, then why would we need levels? Why would we call them _skill_ levels? Why do we have luck _dice_?

 

 

If someone is "consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest" that could be the result of skill levels. Or maybe they're just lucky. Someone who really was luckier would have better results on average.

As for its predictable effect on combat: I would argue that the changes I made make characters and the initiative order, at least, more unpredictable over the long view. DEX uniformity won't be an issue.

For example, a quick look at the heroic characters in the back of ReFred shows me that the average Characteristic score for any one characteristic is 13.54. Their average DEX is 16.33. Where other characteristics range from 8-20, DEX ranges only 14-20 - half the spread. This leads me to conclude (well, actually I allready concluded this a long time ago from looking at the characters in my group) that DEX is far too valued, characters (and monsters) tend to cluster near the top of the DEX scale, and certain character concepts (low-dex ones) are not valid.

 

Low Dex + Lots of Levels is an entirely valid character design. Even more so if you divorce SPD from DEX. Even if you don't, you could spend 30 points and have 20 Dex, 3 SPD. You could also spend 30 points and have Dex 8, 3 SPD and 8 levels in martial arts. High Dex guy's max ocv is 7 + maneuver bonus. Low Dex guy's max ocv is 11 + maneuver bonus. High Dex guy's max dcv is 7 + maneuver bonus. Low Dex guy's max dcv is 11 + maneuver bonus. Granted, high dex guy is better at more things, but not all characters are universally gifted. Charles Barkley was a excellent basketball player. He is possibly the worst golfer in the world. (Charles Barkley should have a low dex and a bunch of levels in basketball)