Luck Happens

In some role-playing games, you earn Luck for accomplishing something, and you spend Luck either to accomplish something or to improve yourself so you can accomplish things. That doesn't sound like luck to me. It sounds more like experience. You don't earn luck—you're just lucky. It isn't karma. It isn't brownie points. It's just dumb luck that can happen to anyone at any time, and it can be good or it can be bad. So, maybe "Luck" isn't a good term for this kind of metacurrency. Karma is great for Marvel Super Heroes and Brownie Points are perfect for Ghostbusters, but Luck should literally be the result of actual luck, as in chance.

Luck already happens in any game with a randomizer. You roll the dice. You flip the coin. You spin the spinner. The result is pure luck. If you want a rule where you can gain Luck and use it later without stepping on the experience system's toes, you need to make sure that Luck is always acquired purely by chance.

As an example, consider any game that has a rule for critical success or critical failure. You could make a house rule that any critical success (or critical failure, or both) grants the player a point of Luck they can use later for whatever they are allowed to do with Luck. For a game with a dice pool system, perhaps there is a unique die that grants a point of Luck whenever a specific side comes up. For a card game, it's the Joker. If you're lucky, you get a Luck point.

What you can do with Luck points depends on the game, but the one thing it should never let you do is increase your skill/ability/level. That is the realm of experience, not luck. Luck that is gained should be spent on lucky breaks. Even as a resource, it should remain within its own ecosystem.

All of this has me reevaluating the metacurrency in Omnia.

The Arcade Style

There is one genre where experience levels can be justified in Omnia, and that is the genre of video games. Yes, I know video game developers derived the "level up" concept from the earliest real role-playing games (primarily D&D), but I think levels make more sense in video games and the role-playing games adapted from them. Levels and the points needed to achieve them become an element of the game world itself as experienced by the characters—or it can be, and to good effect, I think. There might be room after all for levels, points, and even power-ups in an alternative Omnia arcade.

Improving Improvement

I have re-examined the rules of character development and, after briefly entertaining the possibility of directly linking the Luck metacurrency to improvement, I have decided to separate them. Luck remains an easy-come-easy-go resource that players can use freely when they feel the need. Character development will be based on what characters do during and between adventures. For those who seek a random element and slower progression, an optional rule can be added that requires a check (or "test" as it is called in Omnia) after the conditions for improvement have been met.

The temptation lingers to add another alternative for advancement along the lines of accumulating experience points. The concept is familiar and easy to grasp, but it is a remnant of the early hobby that interferes with immersion and requires an amount of bookkeeping I prefer to avoid. It's fine for certain games, especially those that are concerned with traditional character classes and levels, but it runs counter to the spirit of Omnia. I want to encourage player characters to pursue personal goals and group objectives within the setting. I do not want them to be distracted by the abstract point values of treasure, foes, or miscellaneous activities and how many points they need to level up or increase a skill.

I am striving for simplicity and verisimilitude.

As Luck Would (or Would Not) Have It

The Luck score in Omnia has changed and will possibly change again, but one thing it will never be is a reality-altering superpower like "The Force" in Star Wars or an authorial metacurrency in a story game. They have their place in their respective spheres, but this is not the way of Omnia. Instead, Luck is an intangible combination of circumstances and willpower, or Fortuna and bloody-mindedness, that occasionally enables people to exceed their normal capabilities, avoid catastrophe, and possibly even make a major breakthrough. I think this is something that accelerates the gameplay without breaking immersion. We shall see...

Omnia Update 2025-04-21

The question of the moment is: When I am writing unofficial material that will be available to all for free, do I publish it in Omnia Pro Omnibus or do I create another Omnia blog for this material? Should I have two blogs with no known readership, thus doubling nothing? Is there a point to this? Probably not. Carry on.

Omnia (Tentative) Progress Report 2025-04-09

Contrary to the last progress report, Omnia was not ready for playtesting in April of last year, and I continue to combat my perfectionism, but I think I have overcome one of the most daunting hurdles in designing this game (combat) and will be able to start playtesting before the summer solstice. If I fall short of this deadline, you are welcome to reprimand or console me in the comments.

Be seeing you...

Distinguishing Results

Because of the kind of person I am, I invariably concern myself with style choices of which most readers are unaware. I care about such things because it has an impact on clarity, and clarity is paramount in good rule-writing. As I have agonized over optimal game notation for Omnia, I have become aware that I do not have a clear way of indicating when a number refers to an actual randomly generated result as opposed to a rating such as Ability or Difficulty. If I don't resort to any of the game notation gimmicks I have been toying with, it stands to reason (in my mind, at least) that something should at least distinguish a result from other numbers. I could enclose it in quotation marks, but this becomes tiresome if it is nested in a quotation. I have decided, for now, that it would be best to italicize results. For example:

• Jane Doe tests her Ability as a Pole Vaulter 4 versus a Difficulty of 2 and scores a 3.
• Jeremiah Doe, Brawler 4, throws a punch and scores a 1.
• Jedediah Doe, Veteran Infantryman 3, defends with a 2.
• "I'll use my Ability as a Cat Burglar 5 to deactivate the alarm. The Difficulty is 3? I scored a 4."
• "Test your Botanist 4 Ability. The Difficulty is 3. You scored a 3? The plant is clearly extra-terrestrial in origin."
• "The Difficulty is 3? I'll use my Ability as an Armorsmith 4. I scored a 2 and I'll spend 1 point of Luck to bring it to a 3."

(You will note I avoid using terms such as "roll," "throw," "shake," or "toss" because the randomizers used in Omnia could take a variety of forms from coins to dice to cards to anything that can be used to generate a binary result.)

Is this style choice helpful?

Last Year Was Not the Year

Last year was an abysmal year for resolutions, as "This Will Be the Year" now attests. This year, I have completely abandoned resolutions, quotas, and deadlines regarding my involvement in the hobby whether it's running games, playing games, creating games, or blogging. I would very much like to be involved in every aspect of the hobby, and I would devote the majority of my free time to its pursuit if I could, but circumstances are currently unfriendly to my ambitions. I will try to remain involved, but I can make no promises. Granted, it would be easier if I knew I had actual readers, but that's life on the edge of the void.

Peace.

The Continuing Story of Game Notation in Omnia

I recently discovered that none of the methods of game notation I have been considering for Omnia are compatible with automated audio readers in that the audio reader makes no distinctions between different typefaces or forms of numbering (such as Arabic vs. Roman).

One thought I had was to add an exclamation point after numerals that pertain to randomizers. So, you might have John Doe, Tortured Proofreader 4!, Racecar Driver 4!, Karaoke Singer 1!. As you can see, it makes for awkward punctuation, and I'm not sure it would add much (if anything) to an audio reader's clarity.

I also revisited the possibility of adding "C" after randomizer numerals with the reasoning that it could stand equally for three types of binary randomizers: "coins," "cowrie shells," or "cubes" (as in "binary randomizer cubes" a.k.a. binary six-sided dice). Meet Jane Doe, Archaeologist 4C, Linguist 3C, Medic 3C, Stunt Cyclist 2C.

Perhaps I should just revert to the reliable basics of Ghostbusters and simply use the unadorned numerals. Jade Doe, Ghost Hunter 3, Comic Book Collector 4, Shopkeeper 2, Photographer 3. Surely anyone who learns the rules will know when the numbers refer to randomizers, results, or target numbers through context. Why complicate things?

Alternative Game Notation

In case one desires to avoid bold, underlined, and bold underlined numerals in their Omnia documents and notes, the following alternative method of game notation is offered:

Alternative Game Notation

Use uppercase Roman numerals when referring to randomizers. E.g., an Ability rated at 3 would be III.

Use Arabic numerals when referring to Difficulty. E.g., a Difficulty of 4 would be 4.

Use lowercase Roman numerals when referring to penalties. E.g., a penalty of 2 would be ii.

So, Roman numerals refer to randomizers (uppercase for positive randomizers and lowercase for negative randomizers) and Arabic numerals refer to target numbers.

Would this overcomplicate things? Should I jettison it? Should I replace the other method of game notation with this one? This bears further consideration.

One complication just occurred to me: How would an audio reader narrate Roman numerals? Would it say, "Ability Roman numeral three" or "Ability I, I, I"? I'm not sure I like either option. Back to the drawing board...

[Edit: The read aloud function on my computer simply says, "Ability three." So, it's still a problem. It also makes no distinction between normal, bold, and underlined numerals. I may have to rethink the game notation entirely.]