Luck, simulationism, retroactive narratives, and Wild Bill Hickok.

[Talakeal]

Bear with me here, three anecdotes that tie together:


I once read an article talking about Wild Bill Hickok that said that, in retrospect, he was the best the gun-fighter who ever lived, having won more showdowns than anyone else. The article posited that it wasn't because he was faster, stronger, smarter, or more skilled than anyone else, but merely because he was the luckiest. Someone had to have a lucky streak and win more than anyone else, just like someone has to win the lottery, but when he started out he had no greater odds than anyone else; it is only when you look back at his story in isolation that he appears to be this legendary badass.


Likewise, I once had a discussion about RPGs and how the PCs need to feel like the underdogs, but for the game to function as a game or a narrative, the odds have to be stacked in the PCs favor. For example, if every fight was "fair", the odds of a party surviving to level 20 in 3.5 D&D would be the same as winning 247 coin flips in a row, a miniscule number to be sure. So, the game is stacked in the players odds, and many of the more literal minded people argue that this is a world where PCs are unstoppable demigods, and that even dragons should live in fear of them, and that they are in fact the tyrants and bullies of the world rather than the plucky underdogs who heroicly defy death that the narrative would have you believe.


Third, many games have some sort of in game luck mechanic. Many otherwise simulationist systems give players luck or fate points that allow them to reroll or modify dice or even just ignore something bad that happens to a character. Even D&D claims that its abstract HP mechanics represent a large amount of luck. Now, the question is, do these mechanics have any in game reality? Are the players chosen by destiny or the gods, do they have some sort of tangible luck field that can be examined in a laboratory? Or are they just badass?


I posit that if we look at these three points together, we can get a new way of looking at RPGs. If, when the game starts, you come into it with the assumption that you are telling a story about people who will eventually become heroes, then you can still have a simulationist system where the PCs are the underdogs and have metagame luck powers without it breaking anything. Not all PCs are special, the world is littered with thousands of them who died or failed their quest, but we aren't focusing on their stories because they aren't as interesting. Instead we are looking at the guys who made it, or who atleast got far enough to tell an interesting story. Those metagame luck powers simply represent the fact that we are looking at the guys who made it rather than the losers.


Anyway, that's my ramble. Just a lot of thoughts that I had brewing in my head for a while that I wanted to get out there. Thanks for reading! Thoughts?

[erikun]

Well, the first problem with this idea is that encounters almost never are a coin flip between TPK or coming out completely unscathed. Wild Bill might've survived by just being lucky enough to not be hit by a single bullet, but that's not how an adventuring party comes out of fights. Most combat encounters end up with some loss of HP and resources, and the goal in most adventures is to just avoid losing all of those HP before all the fights are complete. At higher levels, even a partial team kill is something the party can recover from with little problem. It is less 247 coin flips and more 247 battles of slowly being worn down with the players deciding when they want to rest up and recover to full. It sounds a bit less dramatic that way, sure, but it makes for a better game.

The game is tilted in the player's direction so that the players can determine how much risk they feel like putting out, and how they want to manage it. If every fight had a 50% or 60% to TPK, it would be much less about managing resources and much more about just being lucky enough to get through each one.

As for the Luck Point mechanic, these are fairly system-dependent so it's hard to say much in general. D&D has introduced luck mechanics, such as through Cleric domains or through prestige class bonuses, and those are described specifically as the character having divine protection or as them "storing" luck to use later. Some games, like Burning Wheel or WoD, have the luck described as exceptional effort or willpower that is expended, either being limited or being an obstacle to them later. Other games, like Fate, don't even have an in-game explanation for their luck mechanic; Fate Points can be used to take advantage of advantageous situations, or spontaneously generating new ones, or even spontaneously generating new characters or encounters on the scene. None of those are related to what a character can or cannot do in the system.

Those metagame luck powers simply represent the fact that we are looking at the guys who made it rather than the losers.

The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes the PCs will make it. That's kind of a dangerous assumption to make, as unless you are running a system where it is actually not possible for a character to get killed off without the player's express decision (Fate, HeroQuest) it is entirely possible that the PCs will fail and even die. If you go into most games with the assumption that the PCs are going to win, then you're setting up for either a contrivance to achieve that or to possibly end up disappointing people who anticipate that.

[Pleh]

I think the problem is that luck seems to be an exclusively retroactive phenomenon. The moment you plan for luck and it works consistently, it's not luck. It's magic powers of some kind. Even with meta currency flavored as luck, it creates a disjointed cognitive sense for the player, knowing that to some extent, THEY are roleplaying a sentient personification of luck on behalf of their character, which feels less lucky and more like their character has cosmic benefactors. It can work, but it's inherently flawed, so the flaws need to be accounted for.

The best luck mechanics will involve rolling more dice, so it doesn't feel as much like the players have more control over their player's fate and more like the dice are uncharacteristically favorable to the character, letting them occassionally reroll.

[Inchhighguy]

Is luck a thing though? I sure don't believe in it. The idea that things ''just happen" and if they are good we can look back and say ''wow you were lucky". It's more ''chance" then ''Luck". Worse ''luck" in an RPG is where the DM changes and fudges things.....like when the foe rolls a 20, and the DM goes ''your character is lucky, the attack roll was a six".

The odds must be stacked in the PCs favor? Well...is this not going to a classic railroad game then? The DM just tells the players to sit back and relax....they have already susscfully finished the quest/adventure...now lets just play through some motions to see how the PCs did it.

People that house rule D&D 3.5 to be ''balanced all the time" often have the least fun and many game problems. Most other games, and even D&D editions don't have the ''balance" problem.

To be an ''underdog" is not something most modern, or younger, players want to do. In modern RPGs characters are born demigods.

Most meta game luck effects are just a silly waste of time. So sure, like a couple times a game a player can re roll something.....wow...what an amazing power.

[Talakeal]

Is luck a thing though? I sure don't believe in it. The idea that things ''just happen" and if they are good we can look back and say ''wow you were lucky". It's more ''chance" then ''Luck".

That was exactly my point.

Worse ''luck" in an RPG is where the DM changes and fudges things.....like when the foe rolls a 20, and the DM goes ''your character is lucky, the attack roll was a six".

Not sure where you are getting that from. I certainly wasn't talking about any sort of fudging.

The odds must be stacked in the PCs favor? Well...is this not going to a classic railroad game then? The DM just tells the players to sit back and relax....they have already sucsesfully finished the quest/adventure...now lets just play through some motions to see how the PCs did it.

No, not really. A classic railroad is generally a lot more linear and negates player choice. If anything, giving the players an edge and letting them choose how to use it gives them more freedom to influence the plot that they would have in an old school "meatgrinder" game.

People that house rule D&D 3.5 to be ''balanced all the time" often have the least fun and many game problems. Most other games, and even D&D editions don't have the ''balance" problem.

Are you saying that people don't know how to balance things and are making it worse? If so I agree. If you are merely saying that balance itself is a detriment to the game... yeah, no.

To be an ''underdog" is not something most modern, or younger, players want to do. In modern RPGs characters are born demigods.

Unfortunately this does seem to be the case.

Most meta game luck effects are just a silly waste of time. So sure, like a couple times a game a player can re roll something.....wow...what an amazing power.

I don't know what game you are talking about. For example, players in WHFRP tend to treasure fate points like precious gold, and a high level AD&D fighters HP are going to win the day time and again.

[halfeye]

Is luck a thing though? I sure don't believe in it.

Luck is in hindsight only.

For every real life lucky person, there are ten, or twenty, or a thousand corpses. Going into the situations there is no telling which one will come through, but it is almost certain at least one will. Afterwards you can say the ones that made it were lucky, but there's no telling before hand. Skills help, but it's still random chance that does most of the work/damage in real life.

[Tanarii]

It seems like what you are saying is the fights PCs engage in are actually a coin flip of danger in-universe, but the mechanics stacked in their favor to make it dangerous through resource attrition and not the individual battle can be attributed to the retroactive fact that they are the lucky surving heroes / protagonists. Or at least, it can be viewed that way.

That works well enough as an explanation in a single party non-sandbox set of adventures / adventure path where the players aren't really totally free to choose their challenges, and the progression of combat and other challenge difficulty 'just happens' to be tailored to them, easy enough they aren't in serious danger, unless they stupidly over-extend themselves.

IMO in a true sandbox combat-as-war environment, it's less necessary as an explanation. Because if the players make a particularly poor choice for their characters, they're dead, consequences ensue in-universe, and they roll new characters.

[Inchhighguy]

Not sure where you are getting that from. I certainly wasn't talking about any sort of fudging.

My point was that as luck is not real....and it sure not something you can just ''put" in the game some how.....the only way to do it is to fudge.

No, not really. A classic railroad is generally a lot more linear and negates player choice. If anything, giving the players an edge and letting them choose how to use it gives them more freedom to influence the plot that they would have in an old school "meatgrinder" game.

But it's not really about choice...not matter what the players decided to do, they have already succeeded. It really makes choice pointless, there are 25 paths to the goal....but don't worry, whatever one you pick will lead to the goal.

Are you saying that people don't know how to balance things and are making it worse? If so I agree. If you are merely saying that balance itself is a detriment to the game... yeah, no.

Yes, the first one. But it's also very 3X specific.

I don't know what game you are talking about. For example, players in WHFRP tend to treasure fate points like precious gold, and a high level AD&D fighters HP are going to win the day time and again.

Guess it depends on the fate/luck system. I sure see a lot more ''I use a luck point to jump over the snake pit" then I see "I use a luck point on the hit roll to smash the liches scepter of bone!"

[Talakeal]

My point was that as luck is not real....and it sure not something you can just ''put" in the game some how.....the only way to do it is to fudge.

Fudging implies ignoring the rules of the game, where as I am saying a properly done luck mechanic is integrated into the mechanics from the start. For example, as I said previously, most editions of D&D claim that HP represent luck, at least in part. Saying that a high level character has too many HP to be slain by a single hit from a sword isn't fudging, its just following the rules, even if in the fiction that the rules represent a high level fighter is just as mortal as anyone else.

But it's not really about choice...not matter what the players decided to do, they have already succeeded. It really makes choice pointless, there are 25 paths to the goal....but don't worry, whatever one you pick will lead to the goal.

Its not about any one goal, or even success, but rather about having an exciting story. The assumption from the start is "This is the story of heroes who had a cool adventure, rather than the dozens of wannabees who died in the first room after taking a random arrow in the guy."

[kyoryu]

The biggest issue, and it's a huge D&D-ism, is that the assumption is that a game is a series of combats, and that the only realistic results of any combat are that one side will be wiped out.

This doesn't make sense.

Most combats involve the risk of life. Any situation where it's a 50/50 chance of death, you have to really ask why each side is willing to put their lives at risk for this - because most of the time they shouldn't. ANd in the case of an obviously superior force, they should definitely run, in almost every situation.

Part of this is also a rules issue, where in D&D death is the most likely result from combat (besides "nothing", which just means people will stay in combat). A system where people could take some level of injuries and then reasonably retreat would result in more retreats, etc. For instance in Fate, where anyone can Concede, it is extremely rare for any significant character (good guy or bad guy) to fight til the bitter end - there's just no percentage in it.

Also, a lot of challenges should be things other than fights.

But at the end of the day, the fights exist because D&D is a fun combat game, so we want the fights there, even if they don't make any sense.

[Inchhighguy]

Its not about any one goal, or even success, but rather about having an exciting story. The assumption from the start is "This is the story of heroes who had a cool adventure, rather than the dozens of wannabees who died in the first room after taking a random arrow in the guy."

I think we are talking about diffrent things.

Anyway, I see a lot of games where the players expect an easy time. They WANT the soft, casual game where the characters have already ''done" whatever needs to be done, and they are just ''playing through the montions of the game" to see HOW it was done.

They want the ''oods" stacked in their favor so much that they have already WON. It's the classic Little Brother Syndrome: He is all for playing a game until you get a higher score, he lands on your Boardwalk with two hotels, sink his Battleship or take his queen....then ''suddenly" he does not want to play anymore(because now he ''can't win').


In game mechanics, ''luck or fate" is no diffrent then any other mechanic.

[Pleh]

My point was that as luck is not real....and it sure not something you can just ''put" in the game some how.....the only way to do it is to fudge.

Well, yeah, but then again, Magic isn't real, either. In reality, it's just as much a product of hindsight as Luck is. The brain witnesses something it can't rationally explain and the illusion of magic is produced to fill the gaps.

But that's not what Magic is in D&D. Magic is supposed to be real in D&D. So it's not like the fact that luck doesn't really exist is a reason to not try to include it as a real element of RPGs.

I think the biggest problem is defining exactly what it is without ruining its mystique, same as had to be done for magic. It doesn't help that Luck now has to be defined around Magic, careful not to tread on the same territory too heavily. There are a couple of viable solutions, but as with magic, you need it to fit the setting.

The best one to define, as with the rest of RPG design, is the most generic, being the most suitable to a number of campaigns and least obtrusive. Ultimately, you want the mechanics for Luck to make it feel like the myth we experience is real.

Now, you say the only way to do it is to fudge, but I don't think so. Some games have tried a middle ground with meta currency, which lets players choose when to fudge and sets bounds on how much they are able to do so. I feel that it works with Force Points in SWSE, because there is some intention behind the idea that there is no Luck, just the will of the Force, which universally flows through all living creatures and that it listens somewhat to their will.

The best mechanic I've seen to represent the more common notion of luck being mindless, yet oddly influential, is Advantage from 5e. 3.5 used some similar mechanics for the Luck benefits from Complete Scoundrel.

I think it's possible to make rules around "luck based characters" that don't include Meta Currency by offering them bonus circumstances under which they experience Advantage. Just off the top of my head, it might be fun to see Luck Rogues who get to reroll a d20 that lands on a 1 (taking the second result). At later levels, they get to reroll on a 1 or a 2, then later 1-3. You know, something mechanical beyond the reach of DMs and Players that gives a sense that this character much more rarely experiences the cruel twist of fate.

[NichG]

You could always run a game where after every encounter, the players take over playing characters on the surviving side. That'd emulate the survivorship bias without needing a metagame currency or to distort the underlying statistics.

[Jakinbandw]

You could always run a game where after every encounter, the players take over playing characters on the surviving side. That'd emulate the survivorship bias without needing a metagame currency or to distort the underlying statistics.

Step 1: Be evil, then pick a fight with a bunch of ancient gold dragons....

[Quertus]

The assumption from the start is "This is the story of heroes who had a cool adventure, rather than the dozens of wannabees who died in the first room after taking a random arrow in the guy."

I'm… not sure if I'd enjoy such a game.

I tell stores about the cool characters who survived, who are even more cool in contrast to the dozens to hundreds (I've lost count) of character corpses that litter their path to glory.

Normally, what I want is… hmmm… the tools to develop and act upon motivations centric to the game world, and for the GM to act as arbiter of our successes and failures. To explain that, I'll quote myself:

So, *here*, *these* rocks float. OK, why? Why just these rocks, why just here? Can we replicate this? Utilize this?

I don't want the GM to have already developed the "floating rock school of martial arts" - the one and only possible use for floating rocks in the campaign world ever.

No, I'm interested in what we the players invent given this tool.

But that's wrong.

I don't want to be handed just one tool - I want to be handed dozens. Hundreds. An orcish invasion. A lonely Driad. Dungeon mummies who "just came in to get out of the rain". A kidnapped princess. An evil king and his noble vizier. Cabbage migrations. The elemental plane of taffy. Phoenix extinction. A new technique for ascension. Floating rocks. A Wizard war. An underwater portal to the elemental plane of taffy, with invisible, incorporeal guardians. Troll bridges viewed favorably. Sentient bats. Dragonfire legions. The library in the mirror realm. The source of freckles. Suicidal immortals. A beaten dog. An artifact ice cream truck. Contagious visions. A lake of gilding. Mass enslavement of Kaorti for their weapons. Pumpkin-headed zombies spontaneously appearing.

I want a world full of color and wonder, where we can write our own stories.

If the GM has already written the story, that defeats the point. They can go read that to their kids. Just give us the tools to write our own, and be the fair arbiter of our success or failure (or of our successes and failures).

I'm trying to figure out if I could enjoy, "OK, let's tell the story of how I became the god of snakes, mutation, and branching timelines", where, contrary to my usual desires, both the intended endpoint and the success of the journey are already written before the game starts.

EDIT: in short, this premise for RPGs sounds inherently unfun to me.

[Man_Over_Game]

On this same topic, a lot of HP systems treat health less as "meat" (that is, literal blood and flesh, like Mortal Kombat levels), but rather as a form of luck, something that eventually wears thin, to the point where you have nothing left and that next attack is the one that hits an organ.

In this way, you could treat EVERYTHING as having a level of "luck", with the players just having "more". The problem with that is that players (and sometimes, characters) know exactly how much HP they have. In order to make a true "lucky" system work, the players wouldn't be allowed to know their own stats.


I'd like to see a system that recognized that everyone had "luck", or "fate" or something that kept them alive as an inherent energy value, something that could be tracked, and something you spend to do things that would defy reality.

[NichG]

Step 1: Be evil, then pick a fight with a bunch of ancient gold dragons....

Well, if that's what you're interested in playing, why not? A campaign of this form would necessarily be sandbox without any kind of overarching planned structure. So once you do that it becomes a game about decade-long naps, protecting one's clutch from poachers, and driving off the occasional red dragon.

Or to put it another way, if you intentionally lose to a powerful retiree, you're saying 'I want to play a game about my character's retirement!'

[Talakeal]

I'm… not sure if I'd enjoy such a game.

I tell stores about the cool characters who survived, who are even more cool in contrast to the dozens to hundreds (I've lost count) of character corpses that litter their path to glory.

Normally, what I want is… hmmm… the tools to develop and act upon motivations centric to the game world, and for the GM to act as arbiter of our successes and failures. To explain that, I'll quote myself:



I'm trying to figure out if I could enjoy, "OK, let's tell the story of how I became the god of snakes, mutation, and branching timelines", where, contrary to my usual desires, both the intended endpoint and the success of the journey are already written before the game starts.

EDIT: in short, this premise for RPGs sounds inherently unfun to me.

I hate to break it to you, but I am almost certain you already do play in such a game.

I honeslty can't think of a mainstream game where the rules aren't stacked in the PCs favor, even super gritty meatgrinders like WHFRP or OD&D.

My point is not about changing the nature of the rules or the explanation of the game, merely to offer an alternative way of looking at these rules as a measure of retroactive survivor bias rather than the assumption that the PCs are just demigods.

[Willie the Duck]

<Wild Bill Story.>
Also (moved):
Third, many games have some sort of in game luck mechanic. Many otherwise simulationist systems give players luck or fate points that allow them to reroll or modify dice or even just ignore something bad that happens to a character.
Even D&D claims that its abstract HP mechanics represent a large amount of luck. Now, the question is, do these mechanics have any in game reality? Are the players chosen by destiny or the gods, do they have some sort of tangible luck field that can be examined in a laboratory? Or are they just badass?

The Wild Bill story is how luck works I the real world. In game terms, actual luck works the same way – you find a character who has made their saving throw twenty times in a row, look back at that winning streak and call it luck. In the game you can (as you mention) also declare other mechanism to be, by game description (so the same mechanism whereby an ‘area effect damage with save’ becomes a fireball), declared to be luck. The two are not the same, though. One is random chance working out for your character’s benefit, while the other is removing (or mitigating) the effect of random chance. From a thematic standpoint, it works, but it is luck in name only (or only within the game fiction).

As to Hit Points specifically, this is a great example of something being luck by declaration. Mind you, there is a real component to luck involved (since damage is a random roll and hit points per level usually has a random component. However, this is mostly an after-the-fact justification for why a high level fighter can survive multiple sword stabs or repeated 10 meter+ (so, usually fatal) falls and get up and fight. I used to be in regular forum conversation with Mike Mornard, one of the original group of D&D playtesters, and he was always adamant that ‘hit points were hit points and they represent hit points. They are a (gamist) pacing mechanism between full health and dead, and anything after that is retroactive justification.’

As to whether there is an in-game reality component to that… at some point, you do need an explanation for why Thogg the barbarian has been stabbed 23 times and shakes it off with a night’s rest. You can say that only luck was actually expended, that all the hits were merely scratches, or whatever else. Whatever works for your verisimilitude.

Likewise, I once had a discussion about RPGs and how the PCs need to feel like the underdogs, but for the game to function as a game or a narrative, the odds have to be stacked in the PCs favor.

Honestly, it really doesn’t. And, in fact, as a general rule stacking it is hard to hard-code into the game. Player characters, given sufficient agency, awareness, and meaningful choices, can pretty much dial up the amount of risk for their characters that they want. If you want to go find an even fight in most TTRPGs, you pretty much can provided the GM doesn’t say no. This is probably where the accusation of railroading comes from (although I consider it a needlessly inflammatory term for the situation). If the PCs can’t find themselves fights they only have a 50% chance of overcoming, it is because the GM has constrained their options away from that specific amount of danger.

What most games do is define the normative range of encounters, and set expectations such that players will choose to send themselves at challenges where they have a much greater than 50% chance of success. Mind you, all of that is dependent upon how one defines chance of success, of course, and how much you factor player ingenuity into the equations, more on that...

I hate to break it to you, but I am almost certain you already do play in such a game.

I honeslty can't think of a mainstream game where the rules aren't stacked in the PCs favor, even super gritty meatgrinders like WHFRP or OD&D.

For the most part, as I said above, both modern games and oD&D and the like are both situations where the players can dial up the difficulty that they want. oD&D was supposedly the era when you had to think your way through stuff and gp=xp made figuring out ways not to fight but still get the treasure the best option, and so forth. On the other hand, it is also the era where the term ‘Monty Haul gaming’ was coined and when the designers had to admonish the player base not to use the Gods and Demigods book as a high level monster manual, so it’s hardly a one-or-the-other situation.

That said, there were certain mechanical incentives for using a certain amount of player ingenuity in place of raw power. A 5th level fighting man, for instance, really didn’t have much going for them that a 5 HD monster didn’t have – same HP, same attack chance, same 1d6 damage, similar AC (greater chance of having magic weapons and armor, most likely, since they wouldn’t have survived the encounter with the wights two rooms back otherwise), magic user backup kind of a wash with the special powers the monsters might have. Given that there was no such thing as Challenge Rating, and the general assumption was that HD approximated level at which you were assumed to be ready to fight a monster, combat odds were not dissimilar to 50:50. If you fought fair, of course. So there was a strong incentive never to fight a battle unless your victory was a foregone conclusion. Fight dirty. Fight in numbers. Convince Monster group A over here to help you fight Monster group B over there. Sneak past Monster group C and take their treasure (and thus 90% of their XP) without bothering to fight. How well it worked was entirely DM and group dependent (since the early books were less-than-great at communicating this idea), but there were clear incentivization structures in place for that kind of gameplay.

and many of the more literal minded people argue that this is a world where PCs are unstoppable demigods, and that even dragons should live in fear of them, and that they are in fact the tyrants and bullies of the world rather than the plucky underdogs who heroicly defy death that the narrative would have you believe.

I, uh, don’t really know any of these people who argue this, barring on forums like this. PCs are powerful, no doubt. Those that survive to high level seem to always be able to make huge changes to the world around them. The exact number of them that act like bullies (or murderhobos, or petty demigods, or etc.) is entirely based on how the players play their characters.

[Talakeal]

For the most part, as I said above, both modern games and oD&D and the like are both situations where the players can dial up the difficulty that they want. oD&D was supposedly the era when you had to think your way through stuff and gp=xp made figuring out ways not to fight but still get the treasure the best option, and so forth. On the other hand, it is also the era where the term ‘Monty Haul gaming’ was coined and when the designers had to admonish the player base not to use the Gods and Demigods book as a high level monster manual, so it’s hardly a one-or-the-other situation.

That said, there were certain mechanical incentives for using a certain amount of player ingenuity in place of raw power. A 5th level fighting man, for instance, really didn’t have much going for them that a 5 HD monster didn’t have – same HP, same attack chance, same 1d6 damage, similar AC (greater chance of having magic weapons and armor, most likely, since they wouldn’t have survived the encounter with the wights two rooms back otherwise), magic user backup kind of a wash with the special powers the monsters might have. Given that there was no such thing as Challenge Rating, and the general assumption was that HD approximated level at which you were assumed to be ready to fight a monster, combat odds were not dissimilar to 50:50. If you fought fair, of course. So there was a strong incentive never to fight a battle unless your victory was a foregone conclusion. Fight dirty. Fight in numbers. Convince Monster group A over here to help you fight Monster group B over there. Sneak past Monster group C and take their treasure (and thus 90% of their XP) without bothering to fight. How well it worked was entirely DM and group dependent (since the early books were less-than-great at communicating this idea), but there were clear incentivization structures in place for that kind of gameplay.

As I said to Quertus, I can't think of a system were heroic characters (usually but not always synonymous with PCs) have some sort of meta ability that makes the game rules treat them as special compared to normal people. It might be rerolls, action points, fate points, inflated HP, will points, or something else, but it is almost always there.

Whether or not this actually makes the game "harder" depends on the exact system.

I, uh, don’t really know any of these people who argue this, barring on forums like this. PCs are powerful, no doubt. Those that survive to high level seem to always be able to make huge changes to the world around them. The exact number of them that act like bullies (or murderhobos, or petty demigods, or etc.) is entirely based on how the players play their characters.

Its really more of how you frame the narrative. If there is a mortal dispute, the plucky underdog who stands up for what is right looks like a hero. If, on the other hand, you have the most powerful guy around forcing everyone else to live by his moral compass, it comes across as tyranny.

Likewise, a band of brave treasure hunters seeking to plunder a dragons lair and hoping they don't get incinerated looks a lot more heroic than a demigod who can slap a great wyrm around with no risk just looks like a thug performing a home invasion.

[Quertus]

Its really more of how you frame the narrative. If there is a mortal dispute, the plucky underdog who stands up for what is right looks like a hero. If, on the other hand, you have the most powerful guy around forcing everyone else to live by his moral compass, it comes across as tyranny.

Likewise, a band of brave treasure hunters seeking to plunder a dragons lair and hoping they don't get incinerated looks a lot more heroic than a demigod who can slap a great wyrm around with no risk just looks like a thug performing a home invasion.

A parent is more powerful, and can slap their children around over a moral dispute. Nonetheless, not all patients rule through tyranny.

In other words, it doesn't take "plucky underdogs" to tell a story of moral superiority.

[Talakeal]

In my oppinion anyone who uses force to resolve a moral quandry is at risk of looking like the bad guy.


Notice how most fantasy novels are about bands of unlikely heroes trying to overthrow a dark lord, how the most memorable super hero stories are about power and responsibility or threats that can.t be punched, or how we tell stories about outlaws who rob from the rich and give to the poor rather than a powerful autocrat who fixed socially inequality through mandatory taxation.

Heck, even the Devil looks sympathetic when the author portrays him as a hopeless rebel.

[Arbane]

I think we are talking about diffrent things.

Anyway, I see a lot of games where the players expect an easy time. They WANT the soft, casual game where the characters have already ''done" whatever needs to be done, and they are just ''playing through the montions of the game" to see HOW it was done.

They want the ''oods" stacked in their favor so much that they have already WON. It's the classic Little Brother Syndrome: He is all for playing a game until you get a higher score, he lands on your Boardwalk with two hotels, sink his Battleship or take his queen....then ''suddenly" he does not want to play anymore(because now he ''can't win').

Filthy CASUALS. How dare they want to 'enjoy' a 'game' instead of SUFFERING THROUGH A BRUTAL CRUCIBLE WHERE HEROES ARE FORGED OR SLAUGHTERED.

Last night, I was playing D&D and we went through a period of about 5 rounds where the PCs COULD NOT roll higher than an 8 on a d20. And that was in mid-boss-fight.

FUN TIMES. And one of those places where a luck mechanic would've been really handy.

Well, yeah, but then again, Magic isn't real, either. In reality, it's just as much a product of hindsight as Luck is. The brain witnesses something it can't rationally explain and the illusion of magic is produced to fill the gaps.

But that's not what Magic is in D&D. Magic is supposed to be real in D&D. So it's not like the fact that luck doesn't really exist is a reason to not try to include it as a real element of RPGs.

I think the biggest problem is defining exactly what it is without ruining its mystique, same as had to be done for magic. It doesn't help that Luck now has to be defined around Magic, careful not to tread on the same territory too heavily. There are a couple of viable solutions, but as with magic, you need it to fit the setting.

One of my many partly-baked ideas was an RPG setting where PCs can have magic or luck, but not both - if you're a magician, Fate Itself is out to get you to same degree...

I'd argue a lot of RPGs do a BAD job of not 'ruining the mystique' of magic. As some wiseguy put it, most D&D magic has all the awe and wonder of ordering a Wendy's Extra-Value Meal.

[Jay R]

It's more fun to pretend to be somebody who's really competent on the heroic level than somebody who's just absurdly lucky.

[Talakeal]

It's more fun to pretend to be somebody who's really competent on the heroic level than somebody who's just absurdly lucky.

I would say its kind of necessary to be both.

You can be competent, but you should still by pushing it so that you don't grow complacent, its hardly an adventure to routinely punch below your weight class to ensure that failure is not an option.

[Tanarii]

Notice how most fantasy novels are about bands of unlikely heroes trying to overthrow a dark lord, how the most memorable super hero stories are about power and responsibility or threats that can.t be punched, or how we tell stories about outlaws who rob from the rich and give to the poor rather than a powerful autocrat who fixed socially inequality through mandatory taxation.

One of my favorite modern fantasy novelists is Abercrombie, because he writes about everything being mud in the end, with lots of violence along the way. My favorite superhero is wolverine, because he so often just straight up murders stuff. And the best Star Wars movies were Empire Strikes back, where the heroes are mostly crushed, and Rogue One, where they win but die in the process.

(Edit: rereading that for typos, it strikes me that it's hardly surprising I'm usually the DM. )

IMO the types of stories you're describing the simple & basic pablum. They feel fine and pass the time, but something is lacking.

I'll grant you on the mandatory taxation thing, mostly because it's not that exciting. It's be like playing a game based purely around spreadsheets or a ticketing system, stuff most of us do at work. Or playing Eve.

[Talakeal]

And the best Star Wars movies were Empire Strikes back, where the heroes are mostly crushed, and Rogue One, where they win but die in the process.

It seems like you are disagreeing with me, but those examples are exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of my favorite modern fantasy novelists is Abercrombie, because he writes about everything being mud in the end, with lots of violence along the way. My favorite superhero is wolverine, because he so often just straight up murders stuff. And the best Star Wars movies were Empire Strikes back, where the heroes are mostly crushed, and Rogue One, where they win but die in the process.

(Edit: rereading that for typos, it strikes me that it's hardly surprising I'm usually the DM. )

IMO the types of stories you're describing the simple & basic pablum. They feel fine and pass the time, but something is lacking.

I'll grant you on the mandatory taxation thing, mostly because it's not that exciting. It's be like playing a game based purely around spreadsheets or a ticketing system, stuff most of us do at work. Or playing Eve.

On the other hand, I see enough darkness and brutality in life around me. I don't need it in my stories. I like ones with action and tension, yes, but hope and where the good guys win. I'm even fine knowing that the good guys win and that none of them even die. Because to me, the narrative is what matters. The weave of action and words, the snarky witticisms, etc.

[comk59]

I'll grant you on the mandatory taxation thing, mostly because it's not that exciting. It's be like playing a game based purely around spreadsheets or a ticketing system, stuff most of us do at work. Or playing Eve.

Hey now, Eve Online can become downright Machiavellian! Once you get past all the spreadsheets and profit margins and guild tithes and embezzlement...

[Tanarii]

It seems like you are disagreeing with me, but those examples are exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

I am disagreeing, because the ones I enjoy are the ones where the band of unlikely heroes get crushed. Even when they have some small successes.

Edit: came back to say disagree is probably the wrong statement. I don't disagree that the elements you were raising are common in stories, or the reasons why is because they appeal to many people. I just don't find them personally attractive. I even find them slightly distasteful at time when done particularly poorly or in a cliched way, ie by many Hollywood films.