How do you use villain's Luck?

[Tech]

I know we have lots of suggestions of how to use Luck for characters who bought it. However, I want to hear your thoughts on how you GM a supervillain's Luck. I'm not limiting it to the following examples, but here they are: what about 3d6, 5d6, 7d6 or 12d6 Luck on the villain's side?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

For clarification: Are you asking "I know how to handle Luck on PCs, but how do I make it work for NPCs?", or are you asking "How do I handle Luck in general?". 

[Christopher]

9 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

For clarification: Are you asking "I know how to handle Luck on PCs, but how do I make it work for NPCs?", or are you asking "How do I handle Luck in general?". 

It seems to be clearly "how do I handle Luck on a NPC, where I am both Judge, Jury and Executioner".

 

My personal advise would be to not buy it for a villain in the first place.

And if you have a premade villain, instead turn it into equally CP worth of defenses. It could be combat luck or any defense that works against the Heroes specific attacks (like any NND's they have). He was just lucky to have the right defense for this fight.

[Surrealone]

That suggestion doesn't seem to address the OP's dilemma, at all; instead, it appears to try to avoid it.

 

Rather than avoid it, my suggestion is this:

• In a situation where Luck would be appropriate (using the same criteria RAW describes for players … but for the villain), immediately prior to making the Luck roll, perform a mental exercise wherein you pre-decided what 1 successful Luck die, 2 successful Luck Dice,  3 successful Luck dice (to … N successful Luck dice)  -- will do for the character -- i.e. what effect each level will have.
• Only AFTER you have that laid out do you make the roll.

This will effectively cause the results of the dice to make the choice for you -- among a pre-chosen set of paths.  i.e. It keeps you from looking at the successes AND then making up a story to fit.

 

I personally don't care for more than 3 dice of Luck to be present for PC's, much less for NPC's … and, as stated in RAW, "Luck shouldn't come into play very often - it should be a pleasant surprise for a character, not something he depends on."

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

I'd suggest back-calculating the "value" of a success on Luck.  Each dice costs 5 and has a 1/6th chance of working.  That's basically equal to a 7- activation roll.  Also, Luck does always choose the "right" thing.  So call it a +1 for "always helpful", a -2 for "only in dire straits" and a -2 for the activation roll and we can back-calculate that a success on luck should be worth about 12 points of effect.  Therefore, before rolling, decide what power the Luck will be emulating.  Keep it simple, few to no modifiers on it so the math is fast.  Then roll the dice, put 12 points into that power for each 6, and apply the result. 

So if Black Tabby is about to take a really bad hit and you roll the Luck dice, each success might be 12 PD or 8 PDr.  If Black Tabby really needs to take out Pound Hound so he can get away with the gems, each success might be an extra two and a half DCs or points OCV.  If Black Tabby needs a distraction so he can hide from the cops, each success might be three DEX skill levels.  So on and so on.  

 

The hard part though is determining when to roll Luck at all.  If you use the -2 figure above, I'd say only once or twice per scene tops, and only when it's the only thing that could change horrible failure into glorious success.  So if the villain is a single phase away from success, roll it!  If the villain would need to beat three entirely undamaged PCs and finish off the fourth that's only taken one blow, don't bother. 

Roll it more often and it should be less effective.  Roll it even less often and it should be more effective. 

[Tech]

I don't buy Luck for supervillains in general. However, for villains that Hero Games created (such as Shamrock who has 5d6 Luck, or Hazard who has 12d6 Luck), I was curious how you would GM that: 12d6 Luck is 60 points!

 

As Surrealone said, " I personally don't care for more than 3 dice of Luck to be present for PC's, much less for NPC's … and, as stated in RAW, "Luck shouldn't come into play very often - it should be a pleasant surprise for a character, not something he depends on."  Yep, he's right! By the way, Sur, thanks for the reminder.

 

A few thoughts of my own, now. Villains being GM'ed already have GM's graces. When heroes have Luck kick in, the players are happy, especially with 3d6 Luck. However, I tried using Hazard once and you know what happened? The players were not happy because circumstances very much felt like a GM override. I agree with the players, and I was doing the GM'ing. Perhaps if a villain has 'Luck', go with a Multipower with charges, 1 charge for each equivalent 'die' of Luck. The Multipower powers cannot be bigger than the equivalent points of Luck had you actually bought it, i.e. 4d6 Luck would mean a Multipower of no more than 20 active points of any power. Just an idea.

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Alright, that puts the problem into much better context.  If you and your players don't like the GM-fiat aspect of luck, definitely ditch it off any premade characters you use. 

 

I'd say ripping it out in favor of overall skill levels, combat luck, and some miscellany like danger sense could be a fun replacement.  Then glue an activation roll on all that to make it excitingly random again. 

[BoloOfEarth]

In my campaign, one of the PCs has Luck UBO (lasting only a few minutes), which he often gives to his teammates at the start of combat.  We talked it out at the start of the campaign and decided that the players would roll the dice of Luck at the start, counting BODY (representing the total "Charges" of +1's the character can assign to to-hit or skill rolls), with each "6" rolled giving the character a potential re-roll of either an attack or skill roll.

 

So, for villains having Luck, I do the same thing - roll their Luck dice and mark on the speedsheet how may +1's they can use, and how many re-rolls.  

 

BTW, I do the same for Unluck on villains - roll the number of Unluck dice and count BODY as -1's, with any "1" rolled being a re-roll that a player can force on the villain.

[Christopher]

8 hours ago, Surrealone said:

That suggestion doesn't seem to address the OP's dilemma, at all; instead, it appears to try to avoid it.

Avoiding a Dilemma is a way to deal with it. Sometimes it can even be the best way. It is a time honored way

 

And tech did explain nicely why any other approach of dealing with it might be flawed.

 

4 hours ago, Tech said:

I don't buy Luck for supervillains in general. However, for villains that Hero Games created (such as Shamrock who has 5d6 Luck, or Hazard who has 12d6 Luck), I was curious how you would GM that: 12d6 Luck is 60 points!

[...]

A few thoughts of my own, now. Villains being GM'ed already have GM's graces. When heroes have Luck kick in, the players are happy, especially with 3d6 Luck. However, I tried using Hazard once and you know what happened? The players were not happy because circumstances very much felt like a GM override. I agree with the players, and I was doing the GM'ing. Perhaps if a villain has 'Luck', go with a Multipower with charges, 1 charge for each equivalent 'die' of Luck. The Multipower powers cannot be bigger than the equivalent points of Luck had you actually bought it, i.e. 4d6 Luck would mean a Multipower of no more than 20 active points of any power. Just an idea.

As I asumed premade villains.
And 25 or 60 AP/CP worth of power is way to much to ignore.

 

It does not help that I never saw a rulesystem with a properly defined luck System to begin with.

Games like Shadowrun or Warhammer Fantasy have well definied mechanical effects for luck. But how often it regenerates is up to the GM.

I had a charcter with 7 Luck in Shadowrun, and I can tell you it makes a huge difference if you recover those points at the start of each game session or at the start of each adventure.

[Surrealone]

12 hours ago, Christopher said:

Avoiding a Dilemma is a way to deal with it. Sometimes it can even be the best way. It is a time honored way

Given the very definition of dilemma entails a choice that must be made … by definition, not taking a stance one way or another (i.e. avoidance) regarding the choices fails to address or deal with the dilemma, IMHO.

So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree...

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

3 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Given the very definition of dilemma entails a choice that must be made … by definition, not taking a stance one way or another (i.e. avoidance) regarding the choices fails to address or deal with the dilemma, IMHO.

Cite your definition. 

 

Regardless of semantics, splitting the Gordian Knot is a perfectly valid solution here.  Premade villains have Luck, Luck on villains doesn't work well in GM's group, so GM replaces the problematic power on the villains.  I see absolutely no issue with that solution, and if you do please point it out. 

[Surrealone]

1 minute ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Cite your definition. 

I believe you're perfectly capable of looking up words using multiple online dictionaries that are readily at your fingertips, so I'm not going to cater to your demand to have me do your homework for you.  Look it up, yourself, if you're that interested in confirming; it's as easy as typing 'dilemma definition' into Google.

 

Semantics are relevant, at least to those who choose their words carefully in order to be as precise as they're able when conveying what they mean.

 

The issue I have with the avoidance of the problem of how to handle Luck on villains … by replacing Luck with something else … is that the problem remains unsolved.  i.e. Replacing Luck with something else didn't magically make the problem of the players' faith in GM's fairness (for which Luck on a villain was merely a catalyst) go away; the problem remains. Dealing with the problem, IMHO, requires a demonstrably fair system for handling Luck (on any/all characters) … or replacing the problematic players with ones who don't get butt-hurt when the GM makes something happen that they don't like.  I'm a strong proponent of the former, by the way, which is why I proposed what I did, above.  But if that still doesn't work, then I believe the latter is in order.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Just now, Surrealone said:

I believe you're perfectly capable of looking up words using multiple online dictionaries that are readily at your fingertips, so I'm not going to cater to your demand to have me do your homework for you.  Look it up, yourself, if you're that interested in confirming; it's as easy as typing 'dilemma definition' into Google.

 

Semantics are relevant, at least to those who choose their words carefully in order to be as precise as they're able when conveying what they mean.

Guess we'll use Merriam-Webster then, it's the first result that's not a music video.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma

Oh, gee, look at that.  Not a single word about "must be x or y", just that the choice is unpleasant or difficult.  So if you're going to be petulant about definitions, you might want to propose yours instead of assuming everyone is using the one true holy version that exists only inside your head. 

 

Just now, Surrealone said:

The issue I have with the avoidance of the problem of how to handle Luck on villains … by replacing Luck with something else … is that the problem remains unsolved.  i.e. Replacing Luck with something else didn't magically make the problem of the players' faith in GM's fairness (for which Luck on a villain was merely a catalyst) go away; the problem remains. Dealing with the problem, IMHO, requires a demonstrably fair system for handling Luck (on any/all characters) … or replacing the problematic players with ones who don't get butt-hurt when the GM makes something happen that they don't like.  I'm a strong proponent of the former, by the way, which is why I proposed what I did, above.  But if that still doesn't work, then I believe the latter is in order.

Tech quite clearly stated his problem, and it's not the one you're describing. Unless, of course, you feel he should just stop playing completely.  That's what your suggestion of removing anyone who didn't like how he handled luck would entail. 

[Christopher]

6 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Given the very definition of dilemma entails a choice that must be made … by definition, not taking a stance one way or another (i.e. avoidance) regarding the choices fails to address or deal with the dilemma, IMHO.

This is what Wikipedia says:
" A dilemma (Greek: δίλημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable or preferable. The possibilities are termed the horns of the dilemma, a clichéd usage, but distinguishing the dilemma from other kinds of predicament as a matter of usage.^[1] "

 

I could not find a defition that does not alow the Circumvention of the Dilemma as a possibly 3rd Solution.

[Duke Bushido]

I am _similar_ to Surrealone, in that I _will_ roll dice.

 

If I may take a moment to explain:

 

It's _easy_ to yank something away from the players; it's _easy_ to give the villain a lucky break.  Worse, it's _tempting_ to do it.  It's far, far more tempting to do it than it should be.  Not for evil or selfish of just asinine reasons, mind you, but sometimes for the best of reasons!  Suppose this is the third or fourth encounter with this villain, and the story is building beautifully, and you have this great idea on how to add a surprise twist or a new layer--- and you just _know_ your players will love it---

 

Stop.  Stop right there.  Maybe the won't.  Maybe they're a bit tired of this guy, or maybe, having lost him three or four times so far, they are _ready_ to take his butt to jail....  And you already know that he's not your master villain and you're not anywhere _near_ as far along in your story as you'd like to be after this many sessions.....

 

You see what I mean?  When you just decide to give the villain a lucky break, is it truly because "it's time he got lucky" or is there something, something you aren't even aware of-- deep inside you that just _wants_ to do this one last thing?

 

To that end, when it seems like it's time for the NPC to get lucky, I _will_ roll the dice.  In this way, even if I think it's time for him to get lucky because of an internal bias, I am leaving the actual decision to... well, to a randomizing device I can comfortably call "luck."

 

Short version of that?  I roll the dice so that I can _know_ that I am being fair to my players.

 

Now _how_ I roll the dice varies a bit.  DNPCs?  Random NPCs?  Just like a Luck roll for a player character.  Villains?   Villains have it a little tougher.  With Villains, I roll 3 dice.  Two of them have to come up "6", or they don't get a lucky break.   Three sixes means a better break.  There is no "level three" for villains.  After all, they've got the script that decides ahead of time if there's a secret escape pod under the sofa.  Does it seem harsh?  I don't really think so, considering just how much I tend to think "Oh, it would be so awesome if!" pops into my head.  I consider it the last check against accidentally railroading my players.  Besides, Crime doesn't pay.  Why shouldn't the universe be a little less kind to you than it is to the good people defending it?  

 

 

Duke

 

[Surrealone]

18 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Guess we'll use Merriam-Webster then, it's the first result that's not a music video.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma

Oh, gee, look at that.  Not a single word about "must be x or y", just that the choice is unpleasant or difficult.  So if you're going to be petulant about definitions, you might want to propose yours instead of assuming everyone is using the one true holy version that exists only inside your head. 

I wasn't petulant, at all -- and I gave you the very instructions (in my response, above -- look again) required to come up with the same definition I used … just to see if you'd use them.  But you didn't -- because I suspected you were actively looking for a basis on which to disagree rather than actually trying to understand my statement.

 

Thank you for the confirmation, thereof!

[Duke Bushido]

On January 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I'd suggest back-calculating the "value" of a success on Luck.  Each dice costs 5 and has a 1/6th chance of working.  That's basically equal to a 7- activation roll. 

 

Sweet!

 

You know, all these years, I have never even _considered_ that!  That whole line of thought just never occurred to me for dealing with Luck (or specifically, for altering it away from the Luck mechanics as suggested over the years).

 

Thank you for that.

 

 

On January 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

 

Also, Luck does always choose the "right" thing.  So call it a +1 for "always helpful", a -2 for "only in dire straits" and a -2 for the activation roll and we can back-calculate that a success on luck should be worth about 12 points of effect.  Therefore, before rolling, decide what power the Luck will be emulating.  Keep it simple, few to no modifiers on it so the math is fast.  Then roll the dice, put 12 points into that power for each 6, and apply the result. 

 

I've seen a lot of suggestions for turning die pips into one-shot Power Points, etc, but I think this is the first time I've seen the idea proposed from the "value" of Luck.  Thanks again for that.

 

On January 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

 

 

 

 

On January 3, 2019 at 7:14 AM, Tech said:

 I tried using Hazard once and you know what happened? The players were not happy because circumstances very much felt like a GM override.

 

Is this a published character?  12d6 Luck?!  Considering what the actual _book_ says is possible at _3_ dice, 12 dice is a flat-out script: anything that amuses you (or the character) is what happens, all the time, period.  You could fall in a volcano and land on a diamond slide that shoots out the side.  It seems odd that the company that specifically spells out "3d6 is pure magic" would publish a 12d6 character.

 

On January 3, 2019 at 7:14 AM, Tech said:

I agree with the players, and I was doing the GM'ing. Perhaps if a villain has 'Luck', go with a Multipower with charges, 1 charge for each equivalent 'die' of Luck. The Multipower powers cannot be bigger than the equivalent points of Luck had you actually bought it, i.e. 4d6 Luck would mean a Multipower of no more than 20 active points of any power. Just an idea.

 

 

Maybe that's the way to cope with Hazard:  give him 12 uses of 1D6 Luck.  Spend the rest of the points elsewhere.  Or make it slide like END: he has a total of 12d6; he can spend 1, 2, or 3 dice at a time.  When they're gone; they're gone.  Reset per X time period.

 

On January 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM, Christopher said:

Avoiding a Dilemma is a way to deal with it. Sometimes it can even be the best way. It is a time honored way

 

 

19 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Given the very definition of dilemma entails a choice that must be made … 

 

I maintain, for what it's worth, that a person must first decide to avoid, so a decision _has_ been made.  It's simply that the "third option" of Avoid is rarely spelled out.

 

[dsatow]

To the original poster's question, I buy luck and unluck for villains but generally do not roll it unless I couldn't care if a random situation could go one way or another.  As GM, the villain in question is lucky or unlucky as the story necessitates.  Actually rolling for the villain is unnecssary.  The luck is there for the occasional time when it doesn't matter to the story for instance when they are playing cards with the hero and you want to know if their luck helps them win.

[Christopher]

6 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I wasn't petulant, at all -- and I gave you the very instructions (in my response, above -- look again) required to come up with the same definition I used … just to see if you'd use them.  But you didn't -- because I suspected you were actively looking for a basis on which to disagree rather than actually trying to understand my statement.

 

Thank you for the confirmation, thereof!

While his representation is terrrible, I do agree:

There is nothing inherent in the basis of the Dilemma that makes taking a 3rd (4th, 5th, 20th), previously unconsidered option impossible.

 

I already gave you the Wikipedia definition above. So here are:

Cambridge:
" a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two different things you could do: "

Oxford:

"

1A situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.

‘he wants to make money, but he also disapproves of it: Den's dilemma in a nutshell’

1.1 A difficult situation or problem.

‘the insoluble dilemma of adolescence’1.2Logic An argument forcing an opponent to choose either of two unfavourable alternatives. "

 

Collins:
" Word forms: plural dilemmas

1. countable noun

A dilemma is a difficult situation in which you have to choose between two or more alternatives.

He was faced with the dilemma of whether or not to return to his country.

The issue raises a moral dilemma.

Synonyms: predicament, problem, difficulty, spot [informal]   More Synonyms of dilemma

2.  on the horns of a dilemma"

 

Again, nothing in those definitions says "you can not take another option if it present itself".

[Sean Waters]

The problem with Luck, as Deadpool points out to Domino, is that it is just not cinematic.  

 

Luck in Hero is not even visible and, unless the villain explains he has Luck Powers, the players will never know that what just happened was a power use and not a plot device.

 

12d6 gives you a pretty good chance of 3 points of luck so almost anything could happen.

 

Here is a suggestion: roll the luck before the session even starts so you know how much Luck the villain can rely on and actually plan what happens - realistically if the villain is winning he does not need his Luck, so you only have to plan for a loss.  Maybe have several of the PCs Hunters turn up, maybe have another emergency happen across town, maybe have an alien invasion.  The point is you can have the intervening event planned in advance.

 

If that all seems like a lot of work, get the Advanced Player's Guide which suggests alternative ways of dealing with luck, like rolling your Luck dice for Body at the start of the session and you get that number of points to add to or subtract from any rolls during the session.  That seems like a pretty straightforward way to adjudicate it.  12d6 Luck would be like having 12 (on average) Overall Skill Levels with a single charge apiece.  The villain might blow them on hitting the characters or hoard them to guarantee they miss him when he is trying to run away.

 

Hmm.  An overall skill level is 12 points and 1 charge per day is a -2, so a single use OSL would cost you 4 points, and 12 of them would be 48 points, which is a bit less than 12d6 of Luck would cost you but then the active points in that would be 144.

 

1 OSL with 12 charges  (-1/4) would cost a mere 10 points, but obviously you could only use one OSL at a time bought like that, whereas the alternative approach to Luck allows you to use as many as you like for a single roll.

 

I'd probably have the Villain quip "Lucky Me!" or "Bad Luck" every time he uses his Luck Levels to hit someone or dodge an attack.

 

Anyway.  That is what I would do.

[Christopher]

15 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

If that all seems like a lot of work, get the Advanced Player's Guide which suggests alternative ways of dealing with luck

Oh, APG I 105 has 4 optional rule to use Luck. And a part on how it interacts with Heroic Action Points (if they are used). I had totally forgotten that.

 

APG II in turn only has rules to apply Limitations/Advantages to luck