Goodman Games

I hope I'm not kicking things off too negatively with that title. I ran my second solo playtest last night. I'll put the results up here and on my blog as soon as I can get them typed up. Before I head off to work for the day, I wanted to toss out a couple of thoughts that were rolling around in my head when I went to sleep last night.

I really like the idea behind the luck mechanic, but I don't think it works very well in actual play. Granted, I've only run level 0 characters, but I don't think that burning luck does what it's meant to do.

Say, for example, my character has an average Luck score, like a 10. If I'm in a heated combat where I really need to hit the enemy, I might burn luck to make that happen. More often than not, especially at low level, I'm going to have to burn 5 points of luck or so and, unless that one roll is the most crucial thing in the whole combat, its probably not going to be worth it.

In my playtest, during a desperate moment, a character missed his enemy by 7. He needed to win this fight, or he was going to die, so he burned 7 points of Luck, leaving him with a Luck score of 2. The PC hit and did like 2 damage, not enough to kill the monster. The next round, the monster killed him.

Even if the character had survived and won the day, he now would be walking around with a Luck score of 2. Now, the GM can hand out more luck for heroic deeds and such, but we don't have those rules yet so its hard to judge how this works in the complete game. I'm guessing, though, that Luck doesn't come so easy that its trivial to burn through your Luck in every session. I'm not saying it should be, either.

My point, if I can make this clear, is that the reward for burning Luck is not proportionate to the cost. You blow half or more of an ability score to receive a single guaranteed hit that does normal damage. After that, you're (literally) out of luck.

I think the solution would be to make burning Luck more rewarding while at the same time making it rare to get your Luck back during play. Reserve GM Luck point handouts for especially heroic actions, say the kind of things that only happen once per character level or something. Then, make the rule so that you can burn a single point or two points of Luck to guarantee an attack roll hits, maybe a few more for a saving throw, maybe a few less for a skill check. Now burning Luck has a more attractive reward mechanically, but its a precious resource that's hard to get back.

Doing this would require a change to the Thief class. Why not give thieves a pool of special Luck Points (maybe give them a different name to avoid confusion) that could be spent to roll their luck die as described. That would give the thief his own little luck mechanic that worked in addition to the normal rules, helping to make the class feel special and still maintaining the rules as they're currently written.

This is rambling, I know, as I basically dreamed the whole thing up last night. I'm curious what others think. I just don't care for the way Luck has worked in actual play for me so far, but perhaps I'm missing something or others have had a different experience with higher level characters.

Drew

I think this sounds right and fair. If the character is trying to use luck to cheat the fates they will suffer for a long time afterward. Btw, the character could have burned their remaining two luck points to do two more damage, perhaps even surviving.. :devil:
Of course, then they are stuck with a 0 luck (I assume that just is a -3, or does the scale go below 3?) for a while. I suppose if they survive the adventure they might get a couple back, but still woefully clumsy for a long time afterward. And, with that luck penalty they'll probably be facing more random encounters for a while...

As i suggested in another topic, I think we should get more Luck based tests. That way,luck feels more like an ability and not a pool; if you burn luck, and you're left with a negative modifier, all your next luck tests are going to be bad. Fate gives, Fate takes.
Somebody argued (correctly, i would say) that no one would spend luck in advance if it can be spent after the roll is made. I woul allow it to be spent only in advance, but i would give half (rounded down) the amount back to the pg in case of failure.

So if John (Luck 10) burns 4 points to get +4 to hit a kobold and succeeds, his luck is now down to 6. If the attack missed, it would just be down to 8.

I would point out that only halflings and thievs recover luck points by resting. All other classes it counts as a permenant loss unless rewarded by a diety or DM for some exceptional accomplishments.

Also, remmeber that luck affects listing checks, and rolls on fumble and crit tables, as well as what ever ability is tied to it that was rolled when making the character. Finally, fighters and dwarves get to pick a lucky weapon to add their luck mod to, and elves get to pick a spell to add their luck mod too as well. So, I think it is an important stat already.

I do think that players should know how much luck they need to spend in order to change the outcome of a die rolled so that they are not gussing and wasting luck. and I think luck should be allowed to adjust monster to hit rolls to allow pcs to avoid getting hit as well

I disagree, I think there should always be the chance that the opposition got lucky. Thieves could become invincible otherwise, especially in one-shot sessions. Thieves avoid getting hit by being sneaky and crafty. Use cover, stealth, trickery, distraction, run away if need be.

I wouldn't say thievs are invincible. I think the biggist sticking point would be one shot sessions, like you said, but then again, thats a problem for mages spell burning and halfling spreading out luck to every one.

I am not sure it really curves the leathality to much becuase, luck spent on avoiding getting hit means its not there to be spent on your own to-hit rolls. And since luck affects so many other attributs, its really not something you want to burn of fast, even for those classes that do regenerate it slowly. For example, in my play test, the cleric spent luck to avoid getting hit twice, this did keep her alive, but now she has a -1 to her healing spell checks and the party elf would have lived after being droped to 0 after a combat except that his luck had been depleated below normal and so just barely failed that luck roll. So, it dose let a character stay the hand of death, but its still at a price.

Right now there are now theives or halflings in the party, but if I do get some I will see if they really end up being invincible or not after playtesting this rule.

What I like about the "only luck on your own rolls" rule is that it really speeds play. The DM doesn't need to pause after each attack roll to find out of the player wants to spend luck (or rewind because they keep going and the player takes ten seconds to speak up). Players can add luck to saving throws, so "save or die" type spells already have luck protection.

This came up in my playtest. One of the players commented on the permanent loss of luck for a +1 not being a good trade.

Getting some Luck back from the GM would help out some. So would getting Luck points when you gain a level.

I agree with those who want to keep Luck from modifying opponent's die rolls. That way lies over-complication, IMO.

I disagree with a bunch of people on this post. But before you get upset, let me list the reasons why.

Luck is not intended to be an ability that is burned consistently (except for halfings or theives). In my opinion and from the play tests we have run, luck is intended to be an 'oh Sh*t' type mechanic in the game. I failed my save by four and I am going to die... I will burn four luck to live/survive but I have used up some of my cosmic karma in surviving.

Yes, I can gain it back over time. Luck for non-halfing/non-theif type characters is not intended to modify the die roll by one to hit someone in combat. It is intended to be only used for the 'oh sh*t' moments in your characters lives. DCC RPG is deadly... Luck greatly helps a character survive.

There are mechanics for getting luck back and they have been discussed in some threads, but I am not sure they made the Beta rules. You can slowly gain them back (or even increase above your starting stat) as you adventure. The concept is that you can build up your karma over time. Theoretically, if you are really good (or have a lame ass tender-hearted DM) you could accumulate enough luck to get to 18 luck if you never spent it.

But I honestly do not think that is truly possible if you play the game in the spirit it is intended.

To those that say it is not strong enough? Well I have to say. 'Dead is Dead. Do you want to live and be unlucky for a while or dead?'

I agree with you in spirit, I just don't think that the rules work as intended. I've been running solo playtests. At level 0, my PCs have only burned Luck in those 'oh Sh*t' situations that you mentioned. Often, even in those cases, burning Luck wasn't worth it. It was a crappy tradeoff. They'd have to burn 8-10 points of Luck to hit an enemy a single time. In a couple of cases, said enemy didn't even die. If it did, and the character survived, he now had ridiculously terrible Luck that was never likely to improve...all for a single attack roll that probably didn't matter all that much in the long run. Why not control the ratio a bit, like say, burn 5 points of Luck in order to guarantee a hit? I'm not suggesting that we soften the price of the Luck mechanic, just that we make the tradeoff worthwhile.

Halflings and thieves are different, which is why I proposed they have a separate pool of Luck points that aren't tied to their stats.

You know what might be neat? Maybe you spend Luck to guarantee a hit, but the amount of luck that it costs you is rolled each time? Maybe 1d6?

I agree with Drew. I've been running playtests and this has come up, in passing, at each one. The last one, one of the players felt strongly enough about it to discuss it during the post-mortem. Burning a point of an attribute permanently for a +1 does suck.

It's a brutal trade-off. If that's the intent, fine. Intent achieved. But it requires something else to mitigate the harshness of the cost (like GMs handing out Luck to players for various things). Even Joseph's acknowledged this.

Another option is to make Luck expenditure just better. Like the Drama Points in the Buffy:tVS rpg. Those were awesome and would be totally worth the permanent burn. But that blows up the Thieves and Halflings too much -- who seem to require that the benefit remain at a "+1" to avoid them becoming the most awesome class evah.

So maybe GMs handing out Luck at their whim is the best solution. I'm not 100% convinced. But it's at least throwing the issue a bone.

I haven't had this reaction from players at all. They've keyed into my descriptions and when I say something like "Your swing just barely misses his head as he steps back." That is when they jump in and add a luck point or two if they really want the hit. Also, they have noted that whenever possible you are better off adding your luck to damage rolls than attack rolls. Once a character hits, then add the luck to help ensure you fell the opponent. I haven't even been telling them the exact number they need to reach and they still haven't complained. After all, it is a second chance to overcome failure, not a guarantee that you can have success whenever you want.

Handing out luck at least once every session at the end does seem necessary though. I'll have to see if that leads to an inexorable increase in Thief and Halfling luck over time.

I have not noticed it slowing play at all. Only if a player was down to his last couple of hps would he ask how much luck he would have to spend to avoid the hit. That has not been an issue at all.


Also, no player has ever burned 5 or 8 or more luck to mod a roll. The most luck burnt in a single run has been 3. Why such a small burn of luck? because it stinks to spend that much. It seems players are fine with burning a point here or there if it will help, but are not willing to dump all their luck and ruin their stat to avoid a hit.

I also missed the part that luck can be used to increase damage rolls. I will have to mention that to the players in our next game and see how that goes.

I had a player burn 5 Luck to disable a trap.

One game element that I dislike, which is well highlighted by Luck, is the cascading effect of having a stat go down in value.

I've never cared for it, going back 30 years, that when an ability is damaged in some way that the modifier is tracked. It really became a problem in 3.x, where the damaged ability score then impacts lots of other values on the character sheet.

Realistic? Sure, it models the weakening of the value. I just dislike how untidy it is. If these were computer driven games then it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but tracking the modifier all the time is bothersome, plus it creates a deathspiral effect that doesn't actually add any fun to the game.

DCC isn't anywhere as complicated as 3.5 and the cascading modifiers aren't all that extensive, but the design is still a turnoff.

I'd much rather see a break from that approach and look at ability scores more as ablative hit point values. You're modifier is whatever your normal value is in the game and it stays that way. The score can go down, but the modifier does not change.

So with luck, you could burn through it, and not sit there trying to debate whether or not to create or magnify penalties to your luck score. You just have whatever you have and leave it at that.

The hesitancy to not burn luck is often magnified with the various luck abilities that you get at character creation. If my Luck score is modifying some key element, such as weapon damage, then I really don't want to burn through luck and suck away at my ability to do damage.

Thank you for stating what I was thinking but couldn't figure out how to best say it.

The problem I guess is why NOT burn through luck if their is no fallout from it (other than you will eventually run out)? I like that their is a reason not to do it but like you said, this would work much better on a computer, it's tedious on paper. I've been trying to think of a different mechanic but it's not coming to me yet. There has to be something better though.

Actually I like this cascading effect, I think dropping the stat but keeping the modifier the same would be even harder to explain to players 'yeh he has Str 18 and +3 mod, and you're down to Str 7, but guess what, you still have +3 mod.' That just sounds like a recipe for argument.

You've dropped down to 2 Str, man up and go questing for the elixir that would restore it. Or change your tactics so you don't only rely on Str all the time. If it's Luck - get bonded to some wizard's Patron and try for a boon - every bit helps.

Use it to seed further adventure rather than blubbing cause you're not uber-optimal all through your adventuring career. Take the knocks and search for solutions.

I agree. I don't think it can work that way.

I don't like having to keep track and adjust everything each time I spell burn though either (and each time they go back up). I wish there was a way to still get a similar effect out of it without the annoyance of all that book-keeping.

How many locations on a wizard character sheet will an adjustment to strength or agility really affect? Maybe his one or two weapon entries (and reflex save). How long does it really take to make this update?

1-3 weapons (ie. if using range as well), reflex save, AC, initiative, fortitude saves, melee to hit bonus, melee damage bonus, range to hit bonus and possibly others I am not thinking of (depends what character sheet you use as well).

On a big spell burn I might have to change 10 entries, 13 if you include the abilities themselves, and 16 if you include the ability modifiers. To me, that's annoying. Especially when later in the adventure, after some rest they go back up.... only to drop a few encounters later.

Surely their has to be a simpler system that gives the same feel. It's double annoying when I am not even sure spell burn adds all that much to the game. If a wizard needs to push himself he can already burn luck, get help from a halfling etc. Adding spell burn as an extra bonus just leaves it open for casters to do things they were probably never intended to do and throw things completely out of balance. Of course I am not ready to cast it aside yet either, it may just need some balances put in place (ie. it costs 3 abilities for a +1, or a wizard can burn their class die maximum so 1-3 at level 1 etc.).

That is my general feeling. I was proposing that you could limit the burn on any one ability for any one spell to an amount equal to caster level. So a level 1 caster could burn 1 in each of the three physical stats for a +3 on any given spell, but not more. Of course, this is in addition to mandatory burn from the spell description.

I've pondered other options but any sort of blanket penalty for burning or using luck is actually even more penalizing than just adjusting the specific scores, so I don't see how to make them work.

I didn't consider burning luck to help with a disable traps skill. I guess a low level thief would have to burn about that much to get a solid bonus to make him comfortable at disarming a trap (giving him at level one, a +25 to 100% bonus. Although, I probably would have burned three, giving me 15 to 60% bonusfor a total of about 35% to 95% chanch of success). But than again, the thief can heal I think one luck point per level per day of resting so they can afford to spend it a little more liberally. But I still doubt that he can spend 5 points all session long getting those bonuses. It also makes a difference if the game was a one shot game or somewhat of an ongoing game.

The cleric in my game has luck tied to healing casting checks and spends luck points very rarely. (in fact, if I didn't offer the option to burn luck to avoid getting hit, she would never spend luck). In the last session I ran she did spend 4, the most I have ever seend being spent at one time, and it was because she probably would have died from the blow. Also, in that same session, 2 level 2 characters got killed in one fight, one of which was a thief, so I don't see this method slowing down the game or making pcs overly difficult to kill.

So barely 1/3 of the number of place you would have to update on a 3e sheet?


That's why you leave space for "temporary" modifiers on the sheet so you can pencil in changes that will go away. This isn't that hard. And it can be accomplished with a simple character sheet that is designed for actual use. The flaw with most character sheets is they are designed to look nice rather than to make the player's evening simpler.

Well this I can agree with this but it still doesn't change my opinion that it should be cleaner and/or require less adjusting.

I am working on variants though...

I love this. I'd even let this be used against being hit, or basically to modify almost any die roll. Yes, you can avoid being hit by the spear trap. Yes, you may be able to avoid dying and only end up spending 1 luck point. But it could cost you over half your luck, or more, and either way, the decision you're making has a potentially steep cost. Obviously, if you run out of luck on the d6 and you end up with 0, you've essentially killed the character anyway. Maybe instead of getting hit by the spear, he has a sudden brain aneurysm and collapses anyway.

I think this gives characters a mechanical agency in their own survival, but comes at such a potentially steep cost that it's not done lightly. I haven't looked super closely at the classes yet, since I'm gearing up to run the Level 0 Funnel thing, but Thief Luck and Halfling Rub Off Luck could just work like normal, adding the +1, unless the Thief wanted to guarantee his success in the same way and roll the d6 to see how much it costs him/her. Or honestly, if the Halfling was willing to take the same chance to guarantee the success of one of his party members, why not let him take it? He's not going to regenerate his luck fast enough to be abusive, unless he consistently rolls low on the d6, in which case, he's getting lucky, and that's fine.

Thinking on my feet here, but what if characters could use luck either way--to get a small +1 bonus to one of their rolls per one point of Luck as per the rules, or risk 1d6 points of luck for a guaranteed success, avoidance of an enemy's attack, or what have you? I agree that players having to decide after each hit might add a little bit of length to the game, but it seems like a potentially rewarding decision point and would only be used when the character was fairly certain that the hit would kill them, leading to a d6 roll with a lot of consequence and attendant drama, especially if the character's luck is 6 or less.

Anyway, as others have said, unless there's some incentive for burning Luck before the roll, there's no reason anybody would do that, as opposed to after the roll. A flat +2 in addition to +1 per Luck point expended prior to a roll was suggested elsewhere, and that might be enough of an incentive, or possibly too great of one. Even with this, one Luck point before the roll gives a +3, which is fairly significant. Any kind of 2-for-1 deal seems too much, at least to me.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that a character's Luck does play a factor in NPC's attacks against the character, but only when that NPC scores a critical hit, in which case the Luck modifier applies negatively to the NPC's Critical Roll (as I understand it, per page 11 and page 79). This seems a little fiddly and unlikely to affect too much, but maybe that's okay.

As far as characters regaining luck, I don't see this as something that needs rules-mandated at all. The rules seem very clear on it--
"The Luck score changes over the course of a character’s adventures and is linked to their alignment. Characters
that act against their alignment may find themselves suddenly unlucky. Those who swear an oath to a patron of their newly desired alignment may find the change easier....Players would be well advised to understand the goals of gods and demons that shape the world around them, for they are but pawns in a cosmic struggle, and their luck on this mortal plane can be influenced by the eternal conflict that rages around them." (pg 12)

It's easy to imagine a Lucky Boulder held sacred by Chee-Shrekial, the Saint of the Plateaus, where those unlucky in life make risky pilgrimages to offer their prayers, or a ruby amulet worn by followers of Kantixala, a minor Demon of Numbers who looks after his own, or a neglected shrine in a dank ruin that a PC cleans the dust off of, endearing them to some forgotten deity. Some sort of flat "PCs should regain 1-3 points of Luck an adventure" or something cheapens the concept of Luck and seems against the spirit of the game.