Taken from Email Thread… originally proposed by Mario Kundzins
1)WPR^ or INT^, I would say as it is also instinctual(Like Priests) as well as determination (For the warrior types) but, I’d lean more towards INT myself. Do as you will but, make it limited.
2) Yes, if stats allow but, don’t have the CP at the start or, if Stats develop enough later on in the game to allow and reflect the change. But, make it cost double CP Cost and I’d still limit it to = the +CS Bonus of whatever Attribute you attach it too at the Max. If someone has multiple Good luck perhaps as a side effect, someone randomly in the party is affected by Bad luck to counter balance the alteration in the universal flow of cause and effect. This would become the way to balance it out by making it a negative trait from people influenced by the characters presence. If their willing to take the extra Good luck, then they should do so at the risk to other party members. I.E.: Berserk, good in the moment for the bonuses but, puts other party members at risk, maybe even more so, then this bad luck trait to the party. Just once per game (#=to Luck bonuses) as the same effect of the good luck would be reflected towards the character. This could be a simple solution to the extra effects of letting this trait exist in the campaign. GM would have to approve of it in the first place as a
mechanic to be used anyway but, if both are willing to take the risk, it could allow for interesting twists in the campaign story arc’s for a GM and, the characters. Look at it this way: Good Luck 2=Group Bad Luck 1,
Good Luck 3 (Rare in any case)= Group Bad Luck 2. If the group allows someone like this in their party, then they to are at risk to this Trait, I doubt many would allow it the they’re party (unless you’re Charles ;-0 , sorry, couldn’t resist). So if you allow a super cracked Lucky bastard then expect to suffer for it. That’s my take on it. This brings up the fact of Group Luck again as an effect so, I’d even go so far as to say that if all party members have Good luck, it may negate the effects of Group Bad Luck 1, but, allow more then one player or,
crack them out to have it, then deal with it’s effects on your world in a negative way. This should limit either players or, GM’s from going crazy with Luck and the powers of Probability Manipulation/Alteration. Some things just need to happen the way they were meant too. Other then that, blow your AP like everyone else.
3)Look, Hareen had good luck but, suffered greatly in the end from Bad luck(Onus/Curse, etc.) either way despite his good luck, he was affected by the Bad just the same as anyone else…otherwise, he’d have gotten no luck but, not suffered from the effects from the bad. I say stick with it the way it is now, it makes more sense to me.
– Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected]
Right now, it can only be taken once per character. I’m thinking of changing that. First i would move any prohibitions to Best Practice (done) – this makes any limits less a matter of mechanics and more a
matter of game balance.
Then
1) How many times can you take it? I say limit it to 1, but if WPR >= 6 then you can take it once more. This make CHA more of a dump stat than ever though! But it sure explains the archetypal warrior!
2) Can you take it after character creation? For 1 CP, i would take it as many times as i could – that kind of kills the uniqueness of it. I say No.
3) Does a measure of Bad Luck negate one of good or are their effects just implemented against each other? I prefer the later – as it currently works now.
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Incarna PlayTest1” group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/incarna-playtest1?hl=en.
Kelly Berger
View profile
More options Jan 29, 2:26 pm
From: Kelly Berger
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:26:06 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 29 2010 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: Limits on Good Luck
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
INT would weigh too heavily on faith – which get access to divine favor anyway, so that direction seems too overbalanced. Whats the game balance with being able to take it multiple times?
I’m reassessing the whole development of traits during game play. Thats less strict mechanic based and more of an individual option; traits should be clearly marked which can be developed during play using CP, all else is time of character creation only if using CP.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Lancaster, Troy C
– Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –
> 1)WPR^ or INT^, I would say as it is also instinctual(Like Priests) as
> well as dertimination(For the warrior types) but, I’d lean more towards
> INT myself. Do as you will but, make it limited.
> 2) Yes, if stats allow but, don’t have the CP at the start or, if Stats
> develop enough later on in the game to allow and reflect the change.
> But, make it cost double CP Cost and I’d still limit it to = the +CS
> Bonus of whatever Attribute you attach it too at the Max. If someone
> has multiple Good luck perhaps as a side effect, someone randomly in the
> party is affected by Bad luck to counter balance the alteration in the
> universal flow of cause and effect. This would become the way to
> balance it out by making it a negative trait from people influenced by
> the characters presence. If their willing to take the extra Good luck,
> then they should do so at the risk to other party members. I.E.:
> Berserk, good in the moment for the bonuses but, puts other party
> members at risk, maybe even more so, then this bad luck trait to the
> party. Just once per game (#=to Luck bonuses) as the same effect of the
> good luck would be reflected towards the character. This could be a
> simple solution to the extra effects of letting this trait exist in the
> campaign. GM would have to approve of it in the first place as a
> mechanic to be used anyway but, if both are willing to take the risk, it
> could allow for interesting twists in the campaign story arc’s for a GM
> and, the characters. Look at it this way: Good Luck 2=Group Bad Luck 1,
> Good Luck 3 (Rare in any case)= Group Bad Luck 2. If the group allows
> someone like this in their party, then they to are at risk to this
> Trait, I doubt many would allow it the they’re party (unless you’re
> Charles ;-0 , sorry, couldn’t resist). So if you allow a super cracked
> Lucky bastard then expect to suffer for it. That’s my take on it. This
> brings up the fact of Group Luck again as an effect so, I’d even go so
> far as to say that if all party members have Good luck, it may negate
> the effects of Group Bad Luck 1, but, allow more then one player or,
> crack them out to have it, then deal with it’s effects on your world in
> a negative way. This should limit either players or, GM’s from going
> crazy with Luck and the powers of Probability Manipulation/Alteration.
> Some things just need to happen the way they were meant too. Other then
> that, blow your AP like everyone else.
> 3)Look, Hareen had good luck but, suffered greatly in the end from Bad
> luck(Onus/Curse, etc.) either way despite his good luck, he was affected
> by the Bad just the same as anyone else…otherwise, he’d have gotten no
> luck but, not suffered from the effects from the bad. I say stick with
> it the way it is now, it makes more sense to me.
> —–Original Message—–
> from: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kel
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:39 AM
> To: Incarna PlayTest1
> Subject: Limits on Good Luck
> Right now, it can only be taken once per character. I’m thinking of
> changing that. First i would move any prohibitions to Best Practice
> (done) – this makes any limits less a matter of mechanics and more a
> matter of game balance.
> Then
> 1) How many times can you take it? I say limit it to 1, but if WPR >=
> 6 then you can take it once more. This make CHA more of a dump stat than
> ever though! But it sure explains the archetypal warrior!
> 2) Can you take it after character creation? For 1 CP, i would take it
> as many times as i could – that kind of kills the uniqueness of it. I
> say No.
> 3) Does a measure of Bad Luck negate one of good or are their effects
> just implemented against each other? I prefer the later – as it
> currently works now.
> —
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups “Incarna PlayTest1” group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/incarna-playtest1?hl=en.
> This electronic message transmission contains information which may be
> confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the
> use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
> intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
> received this electronic transmission in error, please leave a message
> via telephone at (206) 624-1159, notify me by electronic reply, and
> delete this message. Opinions and ideas in this message that do not
> relate to official business are understood as neither given nor
> endorsed by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. To view our complete
> Notice of Privacy Practices, visit our web site at www.seattlecca.org.
> —
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Incarna PlayTest1” group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/incarna-playtest1?hl=en.
—
– Kelly Berger
* Sr. Architect, Developer, Analyst and Proj. Coordinator
Enterprise Collaboration Services; UW Medicine IT Services
* Owner, Game Designer, & Web Master
Grim Badger/Incarna Gaming Network
* Project Coordinator, Collaborator
World Quest Project
———————————————————————-
“Having no way as the way. Having no limitation as your limitation.” – Bruce Lee
Reply Reply to author Forward
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Lancaster, Troy C
View profile
More options Jan 29, 3:15 pm
From: “Lancaster, Troy C”
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:15:59 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 29 2010 3:15 pm
Subject: RE: Limits on Good Luck
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
True on the INT but, it seemed to make some sense. The balance is, the it has a negative impact =to the +side. As a GM, you say, sure, it’s possible but, it’s going to hurt the group, not just yourself. Are you willing to put the party at risk for a free roll? If it’s a yes, then go for it but, don’t say I didn’t warn you on it sucking once in a while for your group and, be prepared to have the party beat your ass when it does suck for one of them.
– Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kelly Berger
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Limits on Good Luck
INT would weigh too heavily on faith – which get access to divine favor anyway, so that direction seems too overbalanced. Whats the game balance with being able to take it multiple times?
I’m reassessing the whole development of traits during game play.
Thats less strict mechanic based and more of an individual option; traits should be clearly marked which can be developed during play using CP, all else is time of character creation only if using CP.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Lancaster, Troy C
> 1)WPR^ or INT^, I would say as it is also instinctual(Like Priests) as
> well as dertimination(For the warrior types) but, I’d lean more
> towards INT myself. Do as you will but, make it limited.
> 2) Yes, if stats allow but, don’t have the CP at the start or, if
> Stats develop enough later on in the game to allow and reflect the change.
> But, make it cost double CP Cost and I’d still limit it to = the +CS
> Bonus of whatever Attribute you attach it too at the Max. If someone
> has multiple Good luck perhaps as a side effect, someone randomly in
> the party is affected by Bad luck to counter balance the alteration in
> the universal flow of cause and effect. This would become the way to
> balance it out by making it a negative trait from people influenced by
> the characters presence. If their willing to take the extra Good
> luck, then they should do so at the risk to other party members. I.E.:
> Berserk, good in the moment for the bonuses but, puts other party
> members at risk, maybe even more so, then this bad luck trait to the
> party. Just once per game (#=to Luck bonuses) as the same effect of
> the good luck would be reflected towards the character. This could be
> a simple solution to the extra effects of letting this trait exist in
> the campaign. GM would have to approve of it in the first place as a
> mechanic to be used anyway but, if both are willing to take the risk,
> it could allow for interesting twists in the campaign story arc’s for
> a GM and, the characters. Look at it this way: Good Luck 2=Group Bad
> Luck 1, Good Luck 3 (Rare in any case)= Group Bad Luck 2. If the
> group allows someone like this in their party, then they to are at
> risk to this Trait, I doubt many would allow it the they’re party
> (unless you’re Charles ;-0 , sorry, couldn’t resist). So if you
> allow a super cracked Lucky bastard then expect to suffer for it.
> That’s my take on it. This brings up the fact of Group Luck again as
> an effect so, I’d even go so far as to say that if all party members
> have Good luck, it may negate the effects of Group Bad Luck 1, but,
> allow more then one player or, crack them out to have it, then deal
> with it’s effects on your world in a negative way. This should limit
> either players or, GM’s from going crazy with Luck and the powers of Probability Manipulation/Alteration.
> Some things just need to happen the way they were meant too. Other
> then that, blow your AP like everyone else.
> 3)Look, Hareen had good luck but, suffered greatly in the end from Bad
> luck(Onus/Curse, etc.) either way despite his good luck, he was
> affected by the Bad just the same as anyone else…otherwise, he’d
> have gotten no luck but, not suffered from the effects from the bad.
> I say stick with it the way it is now, it makes more sense to me.
> —–Original Message—–
> from: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kel
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:39 AM
> To: Incarna PlayTest1
> Subject: Limits on Good Luck
> Right now, it can only be taken once per character. I’m thinking of
> changing that. First i would move any prohibitions to Best Practice
> (done) – this makes any limits less a matter of mechanics and more a
> matter of game balance.
> Then
> 1) How many times can you take it? I say limit it to 1, but if WPR >=
> 6 then you can take it once more. This make CHA more of a dump stat
> than ever though! But it sure explains the archetypal warrior!
> 2) Can you take it after character creation? For 1 CP, i would take it
> as many times as i could – that kind of kills the uniqueness of it. I
> say No.
> 3) Does a measure of Bad Luck negate one of good or are their effects
> just implemented against each other? I prefer the later – as it
> currently works now.
> —
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups “Incarna PlayTest1” group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/incarna-playtest1?hl=en.
> This electronic message transmission contains information which may be
> confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the
> use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
> intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
> If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please
> leave a message via telephone at (206) 624-1159, notify me by
> electronic reply, and delete this message. Opinions and ideas in this
> message that do not relate to official business are understood as
> neither given nor endorsed by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. To
> view our complete Notice of Privacy Practices, visit our web site at www.seattlecca.org.
> —
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Incarna PlayTest1” group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/incarna-playtest1?hl=en.
—
– Kelly Berger
* Sr. Architect, Developer, Analyst and Proj. Coordinator Enterprise Collaboration Services; UW Medicine IT Services
* Owner, Game Designer, & Web Master
Grim Badger/Incarna Gaming Network
* Project Coordinator, Collaborator
World Quest Project
———————————————————————-
“Having no way as the way. Having no limitation as your limitation.” – Bruce Lee
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Incarna PlayTest1” group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/incarna-playtest1?hl=en.
This electronic message transmission contains information which may be
confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the
use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please leave a message
via telephone at (206) 624-1159, notify me by electronic reply, and
delete this message. Opinions and ideas in this message that do not
relate to official business are understood as neither given nor
endorsed by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. To view our complete
Notice of Privacy Practices, visit our web site at www.seattlecca.org.
Reply Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Reporting spam
Message reported
Rate this post: Text for clearing space
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Kelly Berger
View profile
More options Jan 29, 4:01 pm
From: Kelly Berger
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:01:14 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 29 2010 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: Limits on Good Luck
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Luck can be from within, without, or made by probability manipulation.
Faith, spychic and magic all have it, so its not INT specific in
regards to its possible source – its never made specific (for a good
reason). But in terms of balance – Is that not the point of good luck
though? If good luck’s rewards do not outweigh the loss of one CP
going to something else (and i think it does outweigh that
exponentially) then the same could be said of just taking it once. Or
anything really. So, thats not really a game balance point – thats
just a choice. My fear is that multiple uses of good luck are harder
to track (its difficult enough now) and wont be based on something
that makes sense…