From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS Luck
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:37:23 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <10836@armltd.uucp> dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:

>In article <1992Dec8.175310.2023@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu
>(Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:

>>Er, Bruce, that's how it works.  You can call it after you make a
>>roll.  Not much point to it otherwise.

>Hmm... if this is how it is intended to work, it's something that ought to
>be spelt out in the rules. Everybody I know, including myself, has read it
>the other way - i.e. that you have to declare *before* the roll that you are
>going to be lucky and take three rolls.

Re: "after the fact" Luck . . . .
Well, aside from Steffan, you know at least one other GURPS GM
who reads the rule that way: I do. As do, in fact, four other
GURPS GMs I know, three of whom have developed their "house
rules" & interpretations independently of me, and one of whom
I am shamelessly guilty of influencing.
    Also, at three different cons, I've seen Luck treated this
way without drawing a glance from anyone.
    So a lot of folks use "after the fact" Luck!

>I'm inclined to believe the advantage to be somewhat overpriced if you have
>to declare its use before the first roll - 10/20 points would be better than
>15/30 in this case. But I suspect it's underpriced if you can declare its
>use after the first roll...

As far as I am concerned, this is how Luck works:

a) A player may declare *before* any roll that (s)he wishes to use Luck.
   End of discussion.
b) If the GM *announces* a GM roll, the player can request the GM roll
   three times and use the best.
c) If the GM rolls a *secret* roll, and it is *bad*, he can secretly
   inform the player, who can request the GM roll twice more.
d) If the player has *just* rolled a bad roll, and *no* other related
   die-roll has yet been made, the player can roll twice more.
   If a related roll has since been made, you're stuck.

     This way, players will use the Luck to just barely escape a
bad thing, as opposed to using it to assure success at a difficult
feat. (S)he will appear lucky: not skilful! His/her friends have
every right to rib: "Boy you were lucky! You almost screwed up
royally, there!"
     As far as I am concerned, "before the fact" Luck is next to
useless in a high-powered campaign: where even skills and sundry
other abilities which are secondary or tertiary to the character's
specialization will be at very high levels. As well, as a GM, I
usually require multiple rolls for lenghty tasks: crossing a wide
chasm will require a half-dozen Acrobatics rolls; climbing a tall
tower will require four or five Climbing rolls, etc. So how would
"before the fact" Luck be of use here? Which roll do you choose?
If you fail none of the rolls, wasn't Luck wasted? "After the fact"
Luck allows a bad roll, if it even occurs, to be re-rolled without
waste. Or the player could have me re-roll the falling damage
three times . . . . .
     An additional strike against "before the fact" Luck is that
as a GM, and I know there are others who will agree with me, I
will allow *any* character, Luck or no, to get a moderate (+1 to
+2, maybe even +3) modifier to a roll for a dangerous task if a
concise description of how it is to be done is given to me, and
the character takes extra time and exceptional precautions to
avoid failure. This would give *all* characters a way to "before
the fact" increase the likelihood of success, and Luck would be
severely undercut as a useful advantage.
    All of the above is IMHO, of course, like all of Kromm's
ravings!
-Kromm.

>David Seal
>dseal@armltd.co.uk