Characters each have a quirk, which is the lowest skill they have, and at any time the player can choose to roll this quirk (if appropriate in the fiction) instead of another skill in attempting to accomplish a task. If they do, they get one luck! This is a lot like FATE's compel system.
Let's say my character has a phobia of water. What's stopping me from finding a fast moving stream and jumping across it a bunch of times? It's a silly example, but it's a simple one. You can argue this isn't a good quirk, but I think ultimately most end up like this; phobias are easier to exploit.
So maybe the GM should only reward the luck if the action is meaningful. Okay, but now I have to worry about and arbitrate what meaningful means. That grey area causes disagreements; the GM feels like a rules lawyer and the player feels robbed. How about if meaningful is defined as including some sort of danger or consequences for failure? Sure - but what defines how severe the consequences are? I might fall in the river and get swept away, but what if my friends are right there to pull me out?
So maybe we shouldn't let the players dictate their use of the quirk. FATE has other players (including the GM) compel character aspects in order to make things interesting. This works I think in theory, but in practice, the GM has too many other things to worry about and everyone else is too wrapped up in their own aspects to think about other characters. It ends up with the same type of meta-gaming problems, where players will only think about trading compels once there's a couple of them low on FATE points.
I actually started with a system more akin to Numenera or Savage Worlds, where the GM dictates the luck economy by handing it out when a plot twist or other challenge is presented to the characters. Once again though, this is another thing the GM has to worry about, and balancing player meta-resource levels is generally low on my list of thoughts while at the table. In addition, I really want to the players to have control over when their weaknesses come into play, not only because they're the one constantly looking at their character sheets, but because I want to encourage those quirks to come out "naturally" in the fiction. I actually don't mind - and even encourage - a player actively looking for ways to use their quirk... so long as it's meaningful.
I hope you can see now why I'm spinning my wheels. On one hand, I want to hammer this down so that players who lean towards meta-gaming will have trouble doing so. On the other, I don't want to stifle creative players from role playing their quirks in an interesting way. The only solution I've come up with so far is to limit the maximum amount of luck a player can have at any given time, so that even if the group tends to meta-game as much as possible, the game balance won't be thrown too far out of whack.
If you have any thoughts or suggestions, I'd love to hear them! Thanks!
This is off the top of my head, so feel free to take a more critical look.
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of trying to arbitrate a luck economy, create it as a limited resource within the story arc - each "scene" has a certain amount of luck available, based on the danger/action/etc expected to occur (pre-calculated, but not revealed). If a player wants to "jump a stream" a few times to earn all of them: 1) they need to know when the scene begins (timing), 2) they are delaying the plot, usually at a forward-moving point (engagement) 3) they are robbing the other players of doing something "cool" to earn them legitimately (peer response). I think these factors would actually encourage more meaningful use, without putting the pressure on the DM to arbitrate. In addition, if the DM sees "lame" luck-harvesting techniques post-battle, they should re-evaluate how many luck should be in a scene and how they provide opportunities for players (fight in an open field with a stream nearby, or a fight on a bridge).
I haven't looked at your rules lately, but I'm curious how a low skill translates to a phobia - perhaps that's one of the issues?
All good thoughts Doc! I like your idea of a pre-calculated pool of luck based on the scene's story potential. With this style you might have players wondering why they can't earn luck while resting or relaxing, but maybe that's the point - luck is a heroic thing that needs heroic actions to receive. The only thing I worry about is the GM needing to decide ahead of time, which is a little extra work (although seriously not that much, as you could have generic rules like 3 luck for a non-critical scene and 5 for a critical scene). And if the pool is in plain view of the players, that could give them too much meta-information about what to expect from the scene.
DeleteIt's definitely worth thinking harder about, so thank you!
Your second thought on phobias as a low skill: my thought is that if the characters are fighting by water, the player can say either "my character is focused and uses his gun skill (d8)" OR say "my character sees the rushing water beside him and his nerves go haywire, so I'll roll my quirk (d20) skill". Does that work?
I was thinking about this a bit more today, and I thought - what if the luck pool was directly based on whatever "XP" system you had; meaning luck and difficulty are intertwined. In a pre-written adventure, this could be a little number above the scene.
DeleteHere's my thoughts on the economy of luck. A scene that's very challenging, but not critical gives the opportunity for role-playing, risking a "loss" at the gain of a good story. A challenging situation that is critical to the player's success gives an incentive to use luck, rather than earn it, in order to be successful. A non-challenging situation would be a net-0 gain, they might do something silly, but not earn much for it, or they might use luck without needing to - it depends on if they recognize the situation as non-challenging.
This gives an insightful meta-roller a system derived reason for playing up their quirks when it's fun, and "overcoming" their quirks when they need to.
I guess I'm still a little fuzzy - is "quirk" the actual skill? In your example, what is the outcome of the roll for the "nerves go haywire?" Do they lose their ability to function - isn't that a direct violation of the "worst game mechanic"? I would think it's more something of choices - "I use a luck to keep my nerves from going haywire (-1 luck)", "I disengage, away from the water, and fire at range (+0 luck)" or "I roll my quirk to see if my nerves go haywire (+1 luck)." I'm still not sure what the consequence of going haywire is (a single missed shot, or penalties the rest of the combat?).
Maybe this is the core of the problem with the original post - if rolling to "jump over a stream" has no real consequence, then it doesn't matter if you are rolling the worst die or best die. To the meta-gamer, it's just "throw a die, +1 luck." If, however, failure means falling in and being swept away, losing traction on the plot and potentially ending up in a very bad situation (DM discretion), they might not risk it.
I'm re-evaluating - perhaps the luck can only be earned during a challenge - never during rest or even post-battle in the same scene. Then it's simply luck based on the challenge rating.
Ok, let the rambling take a brief respite. Feel free to throw these ideas in a blender and see what comes out.