Pages

Thursday, February 4, 2021

Thoughts on Swashbucklers with Serendipity instead of Luck

Would I allow a Luck-to-Serendipity swap on a Swashbuckler?

Bottom line: Maybe. Not in Felltower.

One of my players brought up the idea while we were discussing the accidental non-use of Luck in my last game session - and forgotten Luck doomed a PC to death.

The Luck-based Swashbuckler is the standard. Every hour, the swashbuckler gets two re-rolls to deploy onto a roll. Net/net, this means less failures when it matters on rolls the player deems worth spending the effect.

Serendipity, though, has nothing to do with personal luck. It's all coincidence that goes in your favor.

In a larger DF game, it might make an interesting approach. You can just have situations play in your favor - a rope to swing from is just there, you happen to know a swordsmith in town, one of the foes with the drop of you sneezes or turns out to be your cousin's friend or whatever.

I think a megadungeon-centric game like DF Felltower, though, Serendipity is potentially a problem. Using Serendipity to, say, claim a door is open, a key is found, a trap is non-functional, a gate is open, etc. can impose a degree of meta-control on the dungeon that's not acceptable in the kind of play in that game. Saying no in those circumstances devalues the advantage compared to its cost. It seems better in situations where the player can use it as wished without making effectively permanent changes to an environment where the environment is a deeply-seated part of the challenge.

So those are my brief thoughts on it. It's an interesting idea . . . and gives up a lot to get a more finite benefit . . . but it's not one that fits DF Felltower.

8 comments:

  1. Interesting. I've never looked at it like this, of course i never have Players who want to take Serendipity, they see the possibility of "no" and it becomes unattractive to them.

    Despite my assurances that I'd never say a flat 'no', but rather a "No but" or even "let's negotiate". Mostly because i even have Serendipity baked in when I use Impulse Points (which I almost always use), I turn all the switches on and flip all the dials to 11 (if it makes sense), so they have access to paying for serendipitous events, butt hey never do. Their IP get used for Luck rerolls or flat out buying success.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is an interesting issue. I haven't had a PC with serendipity until my current campaign, but it's been going quite well. Admittedly, it is definitely a broader DF game with plenty of time in town, social challenges, etc. I find that the character uses serendipity more often in low-stakes situations (the tavern serves his favorite food, he happens to have a flower in his pocket, etc.).

    Your concerns about a megadungeon make sense. I wonder if a constrained version of serendipity might still be worth the points. It won't allow you to circumvent plot points (finding the magic key), but might offset penalties in various situations. The party is plunged into darkness, but the swashbuckler can see a faint light reflecting off her foe so her darkness penalties are reduced. She serendipitously falls into a more restful sleep than the rest of the party, losing less FP to the short night of rest. She happens to have minor bits of equipment when she needs them. In some ways, it might be like Wild Talent except for advantages. It might manifest as Gizmos, Danger Sense, Catfall, Animal Empathy, Photographic Memory, etc. You could even pre-decide on a list of possibilities with the player.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought that luck was standard for swashies because if you are going to be a front line fighter with low DR you need a way to protect yourself from enemies getting a crit success or you rolling a crit fail.

    Personally, I just think luck is required period, since it is a rare session where "failing this roll would be really really bad" doesn't come up. In both of my current GURPS games the PCs without luck are the weird ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why they need it, but it's not entirely why they have it. A good part of it is thematic. Otherwise, martial artists would have Luck for exactly the same reason - low DR, generally, and very vulnerable to a critical hit or critically failed defense. Buy for them it's an optional purchase.

      Delete
    2. My understanding is that invoking Luck after an enemy gets a crit success isn't official. It's how I used to run it in previous fantasy game, and we used to get a lot of nerfed enemy crits as a result, but I don't think that's actually right.

      My current understanding is that the reroll can be invoked by the player immediately after the roll, for a roll which the player has themself made (attack/defence/resistance save/etc). However for a roll by the GM (whether secret detection/information check or enemy attack rolled in the open), the player has to call the use of Luck before the GM makes the roll.

      Delete
    3. I'd need a page reference for that. Luck in Basic Set doesn't seem to imply that GM rolls must be declared in advance - only secret GM rolls. And "when being attacked" is a specific example of when you can use Luck. So if a GM roll isn't secret, why can't you ask for a re-roll? Seems clear that you can.

      Delete
    4. I was going by the wording on p.51 of DFRPG Adventurers: "when you are attacked, in which case you may make the attacker roll three times and take the worst roll!" The wording on p.B66 is very similar but not identical.

      Maybe I'm just being confused by the earlier paragraph example regarding secret GM rolls to apply to all GM rolls, but "three times" implies rolling all three at once (i.e. invocation before the roll).

      It's funny because your interpretation had been how I had originally ruled the Luck advantage, but I changed my verdict based upon subsequent re-readings of p.B66. If that is indeed supposed to be the case, a less ambiguous wording to me would have been to say "you may make the attacker roll twice more and take the worst roll".

      Delete
    5. I don't read the DFRPG line as saying that. The wording "you may make the attacker roll three times" doesn't have to mean you must decide before the first roll is made. If the attacker rolls once, and you make them roll another two times, you did in fact make the attacker roll three times. It's just that you decided to do so after the first roll.

      Check with Kromm, if you like, but I'm certain that my interpretation is what is intended.

      Delete