Luck as a Characteristic

[zornwil]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

Although it would be an interesting story if Jordan were actually just lucky and had no idea about form training, and conditioning.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

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_?

 

I wouldn't call anything reliable and consistant "luck". I'm not sure what I'd call it, but luck certainly isn't it. Even if there were absolutely no rational explination for it... luck by definition is random and inconsistant.

[Frenchman]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

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_?

 

Joe Nobody isn't particularly lucky. Some people are pretty consistantly lucky over the long run. An example from my own life: At the end of every shift, the drivers flip a coin or play rocks-paper-scissors to decide who goes home first. It's not always the same person flipping the coin, and there are sometimes as many as five of us doing this.

In five years of working 6 nights a week in summer and 3 in school, I have lost one time - and that time I said, whilst the coin was in mid-air, "You go, I'm gonna give Slade13 a ride home." (Obviously I used his real name, but just for anonymities sake.)

If that's not consistently lucky, I don't know what is.

In the end, how luck is done (consistently or inconsistently, as a characteristic or a power) is just a mechanic. Over the long run, statistically, there not a difference between a large bonus once in a while, or a small bonus all the time - and either one can represent being lucky.

 

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' date=' 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)[/quote']

 

Lessee...20 DEX costs 30 points and gives you 7/7 and a 4 spd.

For a 10 DEX character to get that, they need to buy a point of spd (10 pts), +4 DCV (20 pts), and +4 OCV with HtH and Ranged combat (4 pts each, for 16 pts). Total cost 46 pts.

Hmm...I suppose I can sell my DEX down to 8 if I don't mind going after most undead, or I could change those OCV csls to Martial Maneuvers (3 pts each, bringing the total down to 42), but thats assuming A: I will never use my OCV for anything I haven't bought a maneuver for, B: I fight only in HtH or Ranged, not both, and C: My character is a Sumo Wrestler.

Or I can pay 30 points for high DEX, and in addition to having the same OCV, DCV, and Speed as the guy above, I act before most other heroic characters, have high DEX rolls for any dex-based skills I should decide to buy, and I have an extra 16 character points to spend (thats a bit more than 10% of the total for most heroic characters)

Sure you can put all of your CSLs into HtH combat (or martial maneuvers if you're a martial artist) and be able to min-max your OCV or DCV, but you can only achieve an equal OCV+DCV to the high-dex guy by buying lower-cost (and thus limited in use) CSLs, meaning you won't have your high CV when you decide to do something different or unexpected. You will also be low man on the totem pole of initiative, and your DEX-based skills don't benefit one whit - so how can a CSL-Man, who spends 50% more on their CVs and still gets less, be said to be valid when compared to DEX-Man, who has (Effectively) 10% more points to play around with?

I Know not of this Charles Barkely person of whom you speak, so I cannot comment. I assume a basketball player?

[Frenchman]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

luck by definition is random and inconsistant.

 

www.thefreedictionary.com[/b]]

Luck (lk)n.1. The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune: They met one day out of pure luck.

2. Good fortune or prosperity; success: We wish you luck.

3. One's personal fate or lot: It was just my luck to win a trip I couldn't take.

I don't see anything about randomness or inconsistancy in there. Maybe you've got a different dictionary.

As I believe I said before, it seems to me that Luck=Random & Unreliable is a sacred cow of most table-top rpgs.

 

Edit: It just occured to me that one of the definitions of Chance has to do with being unpredictable. In order to pre-empt the inevitable arguments from someone else realizing this, I'd like to point out that that is one definition of chance as a noun. In the above sentance, chance is an adjective. As an adjective, chance has only one definition, "not planned or expected; accidental" which does not mean random or inconsistant - though it certainly can imply those things in the right circumstances.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I don't see anything about randomness or inconsistancy in there. Maybe you've got a different dictionary.

As I believe I said before, it seems to me that Luck=Random & Unreliable is a sacred cow of most table-top rpgs.

A couple of different dictionaries actually:

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source luck  /lʌk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[luhk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1.the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities: With my luck I'll probably get pneumonia. 2.good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance: He had no luck finding work. 3.a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person: She's had nothing but bad luck all year. 4.some object on which good fortune is supposed to depend: This rabbit's foot is my luck. —Verb phrasesInformal.

 

WordNet - Cite This Source luck

n 1: your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that was her portion" [syn: fortune, destiny, fate, lot, circumstances, portion] 2: an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another; "bad luck caused his downfall"; "we ran into each other by pure chance" [syn: fortune, chance, hazard] 3: an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that leads to a favorable outcome; "it was my good luck to be there"; "they say luck is a lady"; "it was as if fortune guided his hand" [syn: fortune]

 

 

Granted, the #1 definition in each seems to imply a predetermined fate that has nothing to do with chance or unpredictability. The rest of the definitions, however, do.

Edit: It just occured to me that one of the definitions of Chance has to do with being unpredictable. In order to pre-empt the inevitable arguments from someone else realizing this, I'd like to point out that that is one definition of chance as a noun. In the above sentance, chance is an adjective. As an adjective, chance has only one definition, "not planned or expected; accidental" which does not mean random or inconsistant - though it certainly can imply those things in the right circumstances.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source chance (chns) Pronunciation Key

 

adj. Caused by or ascribable to chance; unexpected, random, or casual: a chance encounter; a chance result.

 

 

Of course, as I said, if your definition suits your campaign world, I have nothing to argue about. It's clear we have differing opinions about the real world, but as far as I'm concerned, that's not up for debate (or at least not the point of any debate taking place here). All I can really say is the English language is about the most unclear and most easily missinterpretable methods of communication on the planet.

[SladeThirteen]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

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)

 

forgive me, the semi-newb (i'm learning stuff... slowly but surely)...

 

anyhoo, i don't think this would be the case, barkley would have a great dex, but would have a disadd vs golfing is all (same with jordan and baseball...)

 

skill in basket ball is knowing when and where to move/place shots/block. you also have to account for the agility of the player and the endurance too. so barkey would have high dex (for agility and speed) and a high endurance. where the skill with golf is all in how you move and angle your body, most importantly you wrist, hips, arms, and head. a completely different skill set for basket ball... so much so, that even the 'dex' that he would have from basketball wouldn't translate right... i mean, golf: one target, unlimited time (sorta), no opponents (not directly at least). basketball: timed, many targets (i know what your thinking right now 'but there is only one basket per team' and my answer is there are what? four other teammembers that you can pass to? that makes five targets.), and of course the opponents... at least one of which always breathing down your throat as it were. at least in baseball you can run around a bit more... (still didn't help jordan none as i hear it...)

 

but the thing i think most of you missed here was that this is a game... dex accounts for agility and grace in game when in real life this is not the case, but they do that for the game to stream line it so we don't have a hundred and one base stats. luck in real life (whether 'real' itself or not) can be quiet the fickle thing...

 

but the player characters are the 'heros' of the game. even when they are supposed to be 'normal' people, they are still exeptional human beings (or whatever else you play). even if you buy down a stat to below 'normal' levels, where do those points go? into making something else better. as such, if taking luck into account, shouldn't a hero also have greater then average luck to start? so why is it always a add on only for extra points? every table top game i have ever played, luck is always a 'merit' or an 'advantage' or something... most video game rpgs i play have luck as a primary attribute.

 

yes, there is a certain level of luck with the dice, but this is fiction and our characters are the 'heros' of the 'story'... as such, would it not be natural to grant them just that extra 'umph' when they need it?

[zornwil]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I don't see why Barkley wouldn't have a moderate to high DEX, just depending, if we assume DEX as a sort of amorphous catch-all for agility, dexterity, and so on, and be "bad" at golf because his skill is just that much less than other golf players. As to why someone's skill isn't as good in the real world, that's not really for HERO to answer, whether it's lack of aptitute or training or such is moot. HERO introduces a wrinkle by having skills based on a single stat and thereby allowing someone to have "Golf: DEX-based" and "Basketball: DEX-based" and immediately be equal in each ability, even if just picking up the other all of a sudden, mechanically. This has only passing relationships with reality, as SladeThirteen rightly points out. But HERO is a game of options, and if this sort of thing is important in your game, you can easily get around this in your game by doing something such as "PS: Golf" and "PS: Basketball" and removing the characteristics linkage, remembering that within sports actions (if you simulate the sport in play) you can engage in DEX-based AND OTHER complementary actions as appropriate (and things like SPD become important, presumably a higher SPD is really important in basketball and less important or even irrelevant in golf, depending a lot on how you simulate these activities, so suddenly DEX might have a different meaning when we treat it all under a microscope). Or if simulating the sport at an overall level, you can use DEX or other chars as complementary (even INT). And even more important, HERO isn't about sports, so this whole conversation gets a bit silly, anyway - if we want to model sports, we either get a game that does so or we tinker with HERO a bunch.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

There is an old saying

 

It is better to be lucky than good.

 

In this implementation, they are virtually indistinguishable.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

 

I think it's clear that both Barkley and Jordan have a high PS: Basketball Skill, and that their Golf and Baseball Skills are much lower or nonexistant. It doesn't much matter of either of them are lucky, or have their Basketball skill based on Luck or DEX or anything at all; it just matters that one is higher than the other. I don't think Luck has anything to do with it, except to say that both could be "lucky" to be born with such natural talent, "lucky" to be born in a society where they could play the game, "lucky" to have the opportunity to hone that talent and "lucky" to be notices by the scouts and get into the game professionally. How they play it is all skill though, as both worked hard all they way through childhood to master themselves and their game; they didn't wake up one morning and start making lucky shots.