Fria Ligans forum

That is not generally something you, the gm, should be doing though. The players cannot fail forward and the story has nowhere to go if npcs are just executing them mid fight.

There is a thing called a feels bad mechanic. The idea that the player looses a fight to a point where they are broken, spend experience on talents to help them survive, and then have that Exp come to nothing because the DM decided mid fight to execute the player anyway, at the behest of a dice roll or not, is a feels bad mechanic.

When a player gets broken THEY roll the crit and so the result on the table is their fault. It feels less bad. Buying into lucky makes the results better. And the use of it is meant for survival.

The issue isn't that we need the GM to come in and stop on it. It's that lucky 3 negates the risk entirely. 100% of the risk is gone. Either outlaw Lucky 3 or change it to not be a 100% risk free purchase.

In what way does that negate the fact that it's a feels bad mechanic?

What you are suggesting specifically strips agency out of the players hand. They have to sit back and watch to see if they die or not. Anything that takes agency out of the players hand to a point that it results in death is bad.

Let me try to explain it this way.

I am a player. I am in the fight. Because I am in the fight I get to make choices. I use my actions and I suffer the consequences good or bad. If in the course of the fight I end up broken that is a result (at least in part) of my choices. And the consequence is that I am broken (no longer able to act) and suffer a critical injury (possibly death).

That is all fine because it is a situation in which the player has agency to act and risk vs reward and consequence.

But then, your suggestion, is that after the player has already paid for thier actions that they then have a second payment in the form of a pure luck roll that the GM makes with no way for them to act at all. They have no agency in that mechanic. There is no choice they can make. They either die or they don't and they just sit there broken waiting to find out. Do you see the difference between the 2? You are just kicking them while they are down.

But then to add to that, it is generally considered bad when a player pays for a thing just to have it negated. Ever play a video game where a player constantly gets new upgraded powers to deal with new situations and then in the next stage the new enemies are immune to the new powers the player just got? A game on the original X Box did that called Psi Ops. You get to the end and every enemy trooper is wrapped in power armor that makes them immune to all your powers. It makes the game hard but it also makes all your advancement worthless. These players PAID for Lucky specifically so they could lessen the risk of death. Your proposed solution to the power of Lucky 3 is to add in a 17ish% chance that all the experience they spent is completely negated. Which just means you are kicking them while they are down TWICE.

The issue isn't JUST that we need to return a risk of death. It's that one specific rank of 2 different talents go too far. Root cause analysis, the issue is lucky/executioner 3. Don't put a band aid on the symptom. Cure the disease.

Let me try to explain it this way.

I am a player. I am in the fight. Because I am in the fight I get to make choices. I use my actions and I suffer the consequences good or bad. If in the course of the fight I end up broken that is a result (at least in part) of my choices. And the consequence is that I am broken (no longer able to act) and suffer a critical injury (possibly death).

That is all fine because it is a situation in which the player has agency to act and risk vs reward and consequence.

But then, your suggestion, is that after the player has already paid for thier actions that they then have a second payment in the form of a pure luck roll that the GM makes with no way for them to act at all. They have no agency in that mechanic. There is no choice they can make. They either die or they don't and they just sit there broken waiting to find out. Do you see the difference between the 2? You are just kicking them while they are down.

But then to add to that, it is generally considered bad when a player pays for a thing just to have it negated. Ever play a video game where a player constantly gets new upgraded powers to deal with new situations and then in the next stage the new enemies are immune to the new powers the player just got? A game on the original X Box did that called Psi Ops. You get to the end and every enemy trooper is wrapped in power armor that makes them immune to all your powers. It makes the game hard but it also makes all your advancement worthless. These players PAID for Lucky specifically so they could lessen the risk of death. Your proposed solution to the power of Lucky 3 is to add in a 17ish% chance that all the experience they spent is completely negated. Which just means you are kicking them while they are down TWICE.

The issue isn't JUST that we need to return a risk of death. It's that one specific rank of 2 different talents go too far. Root cause analysis, the issue is lucky/executioner 3. Don't put a band aid on the symptom. Cure the disease.

Doesn't Lucky 3 negate not just the risk of death (which is less than 3% anyway), but rather the risk of any debilitating injury? So regardless, as long as they survive, they've gotten their xp's worth.