Yetanother FUDGE Dice post
Steffan O'Sullivan
This is a very fine dice/coin technique I received from Emmanuel
Lusinchi (? I hope - sorry if I butchered it), who says he posted it
earlier, but I never saw it on the group.
This is simpler than my Tableless method, and I'll have to try it. The
amazing thing about it is that it works even better with coins than it
does with dice, but works with two of *any* shaped dice, as long as
they have an even number of faces (none of Gamescience' seven-siders).
The dice don't even have to be different colors. I think it would be
best, actually, if you got some blank dice and colored three faces
black with permanent marker, and left three faces white. (I have some
from Gamescience - I think they call them Martian Dice. Substitute
black/white for heads/tails in the discussion below. Or The Armory
makes a "Friend/Foe" d6: it has Friend printed three times on it, and
Foe printed three times. A pair of those would be perfect!)
First the dice method:
Roll two dice. If the one die is odd, and the other is even, then you
got your trait level exactly.
If both dice are even, you scored at least +1. Roll *one* die again:
if it's odd, you stop there: total result +1. However, if it's even,
add +1 to your total and roll one die *again*. Keep doing this until
you roll an odd number, which stops the progression.
If, on the original roll, both dice are odd, you scored at least -1.
Roll *one* die again: if it's even, you stop there: total result -1.
However, if it's odd, add -1 to your total and roll one die *again*.
Keep doing this until you roll an even number, which stops the
progression.
With coins: same as above, but flip two coins. If one is a head, the
other a tail, you've scored your trait level. If they are both heads,
you've scored +1. Flip *one* coin again - each head adds a further +1
until you finally flip a tail. If the first two coins were both tails,
you've scored -1. Flip *one* coin again - each tail adds a further -1
until you finally flip a head.
Advantages of this method:
- open ended : results range from -infinity to +infinity (although
some might not consider this a plus).
- exciting : you see your result rising or sinking.
- simple : odd and even number are very easy to see on a dice, as
are head and tails on coins.
- intuitive : just hope for even dice (or heads).
- universal : use any kind of dice.
Disadvantages of this method :
- it can take time since you can go on rolling a die forever!
(but it's exciting!)
- you cannot use die modifiers; you must use trait modifiers.
- you have to keep track of some long progressions, occasionally.
Not too bad if you chant out loud as you go: -4... -5... no
-6... no... Aieeee!
- I didn't think of it. :-)
Chances of getting various results:
Getting your trait level exactly: 50%
Getting your trait level or higher: 75%
Getting above or below your trait level: 25% each.
-6 and beyond: half the next level up
-5 : 0.8 %
-4 : 1.6 %
-3 : 3.1 %
-2 : 6.3 %
-1 : 12.5 %
0 : 50 %
+1 : 12.5 %
+2 : 6.3 %
+3 : 3.1 %
+4 : 1.6 %
+5 : 0.8 %
+6 and beyond: half the previous level
Any comments on this dice technique? I think it's elegant!
--
- Steffan O'Sullivan s...@oz.plymouth.edu
Eric Chris Garrison
>Any comments on this dice technique? I think it's elegant!
I hate to admit it, since I don't like changes in the basics of a
game, but it is incredibly simple and elegant. I'm amazed. I've been
looking for a simple dice mechanic like this for a long time.
Definately worth at least a mention in Section 5.
How does this system change the curve on what is already standard? If
it is insignificant, I would consider making this the main dice
convention of FUDGE, if I were designing the game.
Eric
--
er...@indiana.edu UCS Support Center, Indiana University
Lawrence C Smith
>Any comments on this dice technique? I think it's elegant!
I think so, too, but I have a possibly dumb question: doesn't this fail to
take your trait level into account? What is the different between good
and terrific? I presume I missed the obvious, but that's a hobby of mine.
:)
Larry Smith (sm...@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron. Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Edward James
I like it VERY much, with the following two reservations:
(1) Really hugely good and bad results become possible. This might
sometimes be useful to simulate one in a million chances, but then
there are those who say that one in a million chances are either bad
for a story or crucial to a story, and therefore should either be left
out or legislated in -- not simply allowed to happen. But who says
story writing laws must apply to roleplaying games? In Tunnels &
Trolls, which I played for years, it was POSSIBLE to do infinitely
well on a saving roll, but since it WAS so unlikely, it never caused
problems in actual play... Still, there's something kinda worrisome
about small children having a chance, be it ever so small, to slay a
dragon in one blow. --and perhaps more disturbing than that is the
possibility of Benedict of Amber "screwing up" and spending even one
combat round (due to an execrably bad roll) standing there with his
mouth gaping open, parrying nothing....
On the other hand, even Einstein, at the height of his creative
genius, screwed up and divided by zero. So I guess even huge
negatives are occasionally justifiable.
(2) It seems that this multiple rolling thing is going to be terribly
common. There's something offensive about having, habitually, to make
several rolls to determine the success of a single action. With the
old method the dice were thrown and it was over... Here, at least
half the time it will take two or more rolls to resolve an action.
One out of four actions will need at least three, and one out of eight
will need four....
On the whole, though, I LIKE it. It looks like I'll actually get some
real FUDGE gaming in, soon, so I'll introduce it to the players and
see what they think.
--Ed
--
Ed ejam...@ursa.calvin.edu nuff said
Steffan O'Sullivan
>I think so, too, but I have a possibly dumb question: doesn't this fail to
>take your trait level into account? What is the different between good
>and terrific? I presume I missed the obvious, but that's a hobby of mine.
>:)
Um, yes, you've missed a very fundamental part of FUDGE. It takes the
trait level into account, because it doesn't matter to the dice mechanism
what your trait level is: you have to know that before you begin rolling.
That is, if your trait is Good and you get a 0 result, that means you
just got a Good result for that action. If your trait level was Great
when you rolled a 0 result, you got a Great result.
However, Andy Skinner just added it to his FUDGE combat simulator, and
ran some tests. This method tends to draw out combat over the other
method, which is Not a Good Thing. I don't think I can make it the
main FUDGE dice technique, as lovely as it is.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>RE the possibly infinite plus/minus system:
>
>I like it VERY much, with the following two reservations:
>
>(1) Really hugely good and bad results become possible.
This objection could easily be legislated out of existance without even
being offensive: just limit a result to +/-X, where X is anywhere from
4 to 10, depending on your tastes. Note that I did this to Andy
Skinner's Open-ended Dice Method in the Addenda: I just allowed one
more roll (max of +8, that means), when you could have kept rolling and
rolling, if desired.
>(2) It seems that this multiple rolling thing is going to be terribly
>common.
This is a more serious complaint, I admit. And Andy's combat simulator
found another one: it draws out battles. When he ran a few thousand
tests with the program, about 14/1000 run 15 combat turns or longer
under the old system, and three times that many run that long under
this system.
>On the whole, though, I LIKE it. It looks like I'll actually get some
>real FUDGE gaming in, soon, so I'll introduce it to the players and
>see what they think.
I look forward to *any* feedback, not just on dice!
Andy Skinner
... And Andy's combat simulator
found another one: it draws out battles. When he ran a few thousand
tests with the program, about 14/1000 run 15 combat turns or longer
under the old system, and three times that many run that long under
this system.
Sorry, Steffan, I should have been more specific. That was 14/100 and 44/100.
Much worse.
pcunn...@desire.wright.edu
> In article <1993Jun3.0...@oz.plymouth.edu>, s...@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>
>>Any comments on this dice technique? I think it's elegant!
>
> I think so, too, but I have a possibly dumb question: doesn't this fail to
> take your trait level into account? What is the different between good
> and terrific? I presume I missed the obvious, but that's a hobby of mine.
> :)
If you get a result of 0 (with ANY of the dice-systems of FUDGE), then you
have achieved a success level equal to your skill level. If you get a +
result, then you receive a success level higher than your skill level.
If you get a - result, then you receive a success level lower than your
skill level.
Back to the heads/tails technique... NICE-NICE-NICE.
It is an EXCELLENT system for those who modify skill levels and difficulty
levels rather than dice results. I would suggest getting your hands on
some half-black, half-white d6s if you can find them. Recognizing white and
black is MUCH easier than picking 2,4,6 out of 1,2,3,4,5,6. (I think SOS
mentioned this previously, right?)
I suggest including this method in FUDGE as an option. I probly won't use it,
but I can see why others would.
Also I think Human Min and Human Max should be not be used, or perhaps included
only as optional trait levels. The mechanics of seven trait levels are better
than for five trait levels, but the system is, in effect, open-ended anyway...
you just jump up (or down) on the non-human scales, assuming there's a good
reason :)
+--------------+
| Hitchhiker |
+--------------+
pcunn...@desire.wright.edu
Lawrence C Smith
>sm...@ctron.com writes:
>>I think so, too, but I have a possibly dumb question: doesn't this fail to
>>take your trait level into account? What is the different between good
>>and terrific? I presume I missed the obvious, but that's a hobby of mine.
>Um, yes, you've missed a very fundamental part of FUDGE. It takes the
>trait level into account, because it doesn't matter to the dice mechanism
>what your trait level is: you have to know that before you begin rolling.
Thanks to you and the emailers for the explanation. _Much_ better.
>However, Andy Skinner just added it to his FUDGE combat simulator, and
>ran some tests. This method tends to draw out combat over the other
>method, which is Not a Good Thing. I don't think I can make it the
>main FUDGE dice technique, as lovely as it is.
Hmmmmm. This seems to worth a bit of pursuit, though. _Why_ did it draw
out combat? Perhaps we can adjust damage to compensate and have our cake
and eat it, too?
Andy Skinner
>However, Andy Skinner just added it to his FUDGE combat simulator, and
>ran some tests. This method tends to draw out combat over the other
>method, which is Not a Good Thing. I don't think I can make it the
>main FUDGE dice technique, as lovely as it is.
Hmmmmm. This seems to worth a bit of pursuit, though. _Why_ did it draw
out combat? Perhaps we can adjust damage to compensate and have our cake
and eat it, too?
From FUDGE 3.23:
...
Chance of achieving your trait level exactly: 44.4%.
...
Specifically:
Chance of getting trait level +/-1: 11.1% each.
Chance of getting trait level +/-2: 8.3% each.
Chance of getting trait level +/-3: 5.6% each.
Chance of getting trait level +/-4: 2.8% each.
From odd/even (head/tail) proposal (put in same format):
Chance of achieving your trait level exactly: 50%.
Specifically:
Chance of getting trait level +/-1: 12.5% each.
Chance of getting trait level +/-2: 6.3% each.
Chance of getting trait level +/-3: 3.1% each.
Chance of getting trait level +/-4: 1.6% each.
Standard dice head/tail
chance of getting trait level: 44% 50%
chance of getting -1 to +1: 44+2*11.1 = 66% 50+2*12.5 = 75%
chance of getting -2 to +2: 66%+2*8.3 = 80% 75+2*6.3 = 88%
Although the odd/even proposal allows open-ended rolls, possibly increasing
damage, the percentages give much smaller variation in rolls: 0, +-1 are
much more likely. For two equal opponents, this makes the relative degrees
smaller, giving smaller damage. The tests I did were on identical opponents.
If the fight were a Good swordsman vs a Superb, what affect would it have?
Let's see...
after running some tests, they give very similar results
So, for equal traits (not uncommon, probably) the method extend fights a lot
by reducing relative degree and thus damage.
I suppose this could be fixed by increasing damage or some such thing,
but that would break the other method, which I like better. I'm not crazy
about the head/tail odd/even dice method, though I agree it has elegance.
But if you have suggestions to resurrect it, post 'em!
For any algorithmically oriented people, I thought a nifty version was:
start at 0
flip 1 coin, note result
keep flipping coin
if it matches first result, add or subtract one (depending on what first
was)
else quit and keep final score
I wouldn't recommend this for playing, but that is the way I implemented
it for the simulator.
By the way, I hope to post the simulator as soon as we determine that it
matches the current FUDGE and that we won't make any changes to FUDGE. I'll
probably have to make a list of how current FUDGE matches the posted one--
I think we've just made little corrections.
andy
Andy Skinner
If the fight were a Good swordsman vs a Superb, what affect would it have?
Let's see...
after running some tests, they give very similar results
I probably should have been more specific. The dice methods in the above
case give similar results to each other. Both have much shorter combats
than when the combatants have equal skills. When they have equal skills,
there is a large difference in combat length between the 2d6 method
and the head/tail method.
andy
Andy Skinner
In article <SKINNER.93...@ep004.stdavids.picker.com> ski...@ep004.stdavids.picker.com (Andy Skinner) writes:
>I probably should have been more specific. The dice methods in the above
>case give similar results to each other. Both have much shorter combats
>than when the combatants have equal skills. When they have equal skills,
>there is a large difference in combat length between the 2d6 method
>and the head/tail method.
Isn't this more dramatic/cinematic? Someone who is superior in
ability makes "short work" of an inferior opponent, while evenly
matched opponents can be at it a long time. Evenly matched battles
are more interesting in play, in my opinion, so why shouldn't they be
"drawn out"?
Eric
I agree that more even battles should take a little longer than a mismatch,
but the simulator says that about 40 out of 100 battles go 14 or more
rounds. That's just too much. If you use the damage roll it cuts it down
to a little more than the normal method without the damage roll (which also
goes down with the damage roll).
I have changed the subject line of that thread to "FUDGE: Yetanother
Dice post".
andy
Eric Chris Garrison
>case give similar results to each other. Both have much shorter combats
>than when the combatants have equal skills. When they have equal skills,
>there is a large difference in combat length between the 2d6 method
>and the head/tail method.
Isn't this more dramatic/cinematic? Someone who is superior in
ability makes "short work" of an inferior opponent, while evenly
matched opponents can be at it a long time. Evenly matched battles
are more interesting in play, in my opinion, so why shouldn't they be
"drawn out"?
Just a couple of cents... (Ah, but do they match?)
Eric
Lawrence C Smith
> Standard dice head/tail
>chance of getting trait level: 44% 50%
>chance of getting -1 to +1: 44+2*11.1 = 66% 50+2*12.5 = 75%
>chance of getting -2 to +2: 66%+2*8.3 = 80% 75+2*6.3 = 88%
What happens when the modifier turns the final result negative? If I have
level 3 and roll 4 <whatevers> in a row, the net result is -1. Is this
treated as a critical failure? If the value exceeds the upper point, is
that a critical success? These could be tied in neatly and would decrease
combat time.
Another suggestion: combat needs to have "outside factors". People _never_
stand toe-to-toe on a level surface with even lighting and beat each other
to death. Could this system be combined with a die roll to permit people
to maneuver in combat? This would make dead-even results less likely, as
one player might seize a +1 advantage early and hold it until luck (or a
clever feint) would push the advantage the other way. This would simulate
the kind of "I-have-you-now/no-you-don't-either" back-and-forth characteristic
of real-world fights. As a first hack, attacker and defender roll 1d6, and
the initial advantage is attacker-defender. Say, -3. Successfully landing
a blow awards a point to that player. If you hit someone when the advantage
was 3 against you, it would become 2, if it was 2 in your favor, it would
become three. If it becomes 0 (putting you back in that 50% "saddle" that
is drawing out combat), then they re-roll (simulating a clever action). This
could be adjudicated by the DM for actions _during_ combat. Leaping to the
top of a table might push the balance in your favor, slipping in a puddle of
stale beer might push it the other way. It would also give people some
incentive to break off combat, to re-engage and reroll after moving around
some, which would bring some tactics into what amounts to a dicing game.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>What happens when the modifier turns the final result negative? If I have
>level 3 and roll 4 <whatevers> in a row, the net result is -1. Is this
>treated as a critical failure? If the value exceeds the upper point, is
>that a critical success? These could be tied in neatly and would decrease
>combat time.
If you had "level 3," it would be called Mediocre in FUDGE. A -3
result would be a Terrible-1 result - truly bad, I agree. However, I
don't call Sub-Terrible or Trans-Superb results critical in and of
themselves. I admit this is an inconsistency in FUDGE: a person of
Fair ability who rolls a +4 has a Superb+1 result, and it's called a
Critical because of the +4. A person of Superb ability rolls just a +1
and gets a Superb+1 result, but it's not called a critical.
While this is inconsistent from one point of view, it is necessary, I
feel. Otherwise, if you have a Superb sword skill, for example, you
will get a critical success 28% of the time, and if you have a Mediocre
skill, you will NEVER get a critical success. So I go with a natural
rolled result of +/-4 = a critical result. The GM is free to change it.
I'll answer your next question in a separate post, as I'm trying to get
the subject lines to match the contents . . .
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>Another suggestion: combat needs to have "outside factors". People _never_
>stand toe-to-toe on a level surface with even lighting and beat each other
>to death. Could this system be combined with a die roll to permit people
>to maneuver in combat? This would make dead-even results less likely, as
>one player might seize a +1 advantage early and hold it until luck (or a
>clever feint) would push the advantage the other way. This would simulate
>the kind of "I-have-you-now/no-you-don't-either" back-and-forth characteristic
>of real-world fights.
Unfortunately, a +1 is a lot in FUDGE. The way it works now, I find
that the character who wounds someone first tends to win more often.
This idea would just tend to increase that possibility, rather then
create the back and forth image you talk about. It would, in effect,
NOT create the now-I-have-you, now-I-don't situation, but create the
now-I-have-you, now-I-REALLY-have-you situation.
Hmmm - Andy, any chance of putting in the simulator how many times a
character who scores the first blow wins?
Lawrence C Smith
>Unfortunately, a +1 is a lot in FUDGE. The way it works now, I find
>that the character who wounds someone first tends to win more often.
>This idea would just tend to increase that possibility, rather then
>create the back and forth image you talk about. It would, in effect,
>NOT create the now-I-have-you, now-I-don't situation, but create the
>now-I-have-you, now-I-REALLY-have-you situation.
Referring now to the refinement of the idea I posted in "FUDGE: The Tide
of Battle", this objection can be addressed by permitting a character in
combat to put forth some sort of special effort, as outlined. Some other
ideas that have occurred since is a simple way of simulating berserk rage,
(+1d6 to advantage), spending points from stats (perhaps 1:1 or 1d6 advan-
tage for 1 pt of strength, where some number of hours of reast will be
required to recover the lost strength) and so on.
>Hmmm - Andy, any chance of putting in the simulator how many times a
>character who scores the first blow wins?
This would be interesting, but I think the advantage concept _could_ be set
up by game masters to make results _much_ more variable in principle, much
more predictable in operations, more tolerant of GM input, with less require-
ment for out-and-out "cheating".
John H Kim
>rolls a +4 has a Superb+1 result, and it's called a Critical because of
>the +4. A person of Superb ability rolls just a +1 and gets a Superb+1
>result, but it's not called a critical.
>
>While this is inconsistent from one point of view, it is necessary, I
>feel. Otherwise, if you have a Superb sword skill, for example, you
>will get a critical success 28% of the time, and if you have a Mediocre
>skill, you will NEVER get a critical success. So I go with a natural
>rolled result of +/-4 = a critical result. The GM is free to change it.
I don't know about how others feel - but I would much prefer to do
without the vague specification of a 'critical' effect as distinguished
from a very good effect. I think that without including it in the rules,
GM's will still interpret +/-4 rolls as special. I think making the
distinction simply serves as a point of confusion.
There is also the tendency to associate 'critical' results with
combat systems where there are only 'critical' results or just hit point
loss - so lesser effects are not as detailed. i.e. you can have a blow which
chops off an ear, but you cannot have a graze across the nose.
I think the GM should be encouraged to add as much color as possible
to *all* results, whether they are 'critical' or not. (Hence making the
distinction should not be encouraged).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | sun. But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for
Columbia University | everyone." - Paul Simon
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
> I don't know about how others feel - but I would much prefer to do
>without the vague specification of a 'critical' effect as distinguished
>from a very good effect. I think that without including it in the rules,
>GM's will still interpret +/-4 rolls as special. I think making the
>distinction simply serves as a point of confusion.
I've made it optional, John. Andy doesn't like it either, so, since he's
been such a big help, I specifically wrote criticals in as optional.
John H Kim
>> I don't know about how others feel - but I would much prefer to do
>>without the vague specification of a 'critical' effect as distinguished
>>from a very good effect.
>
>been such a big help, I specifically wrote criticals in as optional.
Sorry. Mea culpa. Yes, the criticals description is fine the way
it is.
Now that I actually have had a chance to read over the latest
version of FUDGE, some things occur to me:
1) I really like the way Scale is handled now. Actually, it is almost
identical to the system I am working on now - which is developed from
Ars Magica. (Ars Magica uses a very similar stat called Size which is 0
for humans, and which modifies both Soak and Damage - but I like the term
Scale better).
OTOH, I find it strange that Scale should act like armor rather than
like Damage Capacity. In an extreme example, a woodsman goes to chop down
a tree. Which would seem more tracktable: the rotten, old (Terrible DmgCap)
30-footer (Scale +10) or the live, tough (Superior DmgCap) sapling
(Scale +4). One would think that the old tree could be cut down, but taking
a long time, while the sapling might be a struggle to bite into with an
axe. Instead, it is the opposite. Because of its size, the old tree simply
turns the axe; while the younger one is the long, slow job.
2) It seems to me that Racial Max and Min are more trouble than they
are worth - noting the amount of warnings concerning their use. Given the
graininess of FUDGE, I'm not sure that the difference between the 99th
and the 99.9th percentile should warrant a level change.
3) The notation of all personality as 'Faults' still somewhat bothers
me. Have you considered making general note about 'Personality Traits'
as distinguished from more game-mechanical traits. I think traits like
'Courageous' are hard to group under 'Faults'.
I think this might be another heading, explaining how players may
define Personality Traits, and the significance this has towards role-
playing. Personality could then be described by Attributes (as in Ars
Magica, say: Courage +3), Gifts, or Faults - depending on the GM and
player.
4) In ranged combat, the distinction between Opposed and Unopposed
leads to an unexplained point (even given your helpful examples of
Unopposed shots). Let us say that an archer is firing at someone's back.
The shot requires a Great result, but he hits. Now the target spins around
and prepares to dodge the next shots. With his penalties for being wounded,
the target's Dodge is Poor. How does this effect the shot?
Obviously the target's dodging should not *improve* the archer's
chance to hit - but how do you factor in the Dodge value of Poor (-2)
otherwise?
My suggestion is to use the higher of the two difficulties: i.e.
_either_ the required level in the unopposed case _or_ the target's Dodge
modified by his roll.
That's all for now. Thanks for listening.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
> OTOH, I find it strange that Scale should act like armor rather than
> like Damage Capacity.
I wrestled a long time with this one, too - just ask poor, patient
Andy! It *should* act like Damage Capacity, I agree. I can't figure
out how to make it do that, though, given the way Damage Capacity works
in this game. Any suggestions?
>2) It seems to me that Racial Max and Min are more trouble than they
> are worth - noting the amount of warnings concerning their use. Given the
> graininess of FUDGE, I'm not sure that the difference between the 99th
> and the 99.9th percentile should warrant a level change.
Someone else voiced this, and I went to see how much work it would be to
tear them out. I find they are only mentioned in four places, and three
of those so briefly as to be not a problem. The other place they take up
three paragraphs - not a whole lot. I have since had one vote to leave
them in - they allow for such things as Inigo (Superb swordsman) meeting
Wesley (Max).
Thanks for the vote - I could go either way, myself. Any other votes
on this issue?
>3) The notation of all personality as 'Faults' still somewhat bothers
> me. Have you considered making general note about 'Personality Traits'
> as distinguished from more game-mechanical traits. I think traits like
> 'Courageous' are hard to group under 'Faults'.
I haven't considered it, no. What if I just changed the word Fault to
Personality? Hmmm . . . no, that won't work - not all faults are
personality traits (lame, for example, or bad eyesight). I'll try to
think of a more comprehensive term: I admit Fault does make people not
want to take it. OTOH, Courage is indeed a fault *as it is defined in
FUDGE*. This is awkward, I agree. And, yes, I could easily add a
sentence explaining the GM's option to handle such things on a scale,
as I did under gifts, thanks. (I personally dislike the Pendragon/AM
type of numerical rating scales for things like Courage, but I should
follow my own FUDGE philosophy and not let the game designer limit the
GM.)
>4) In ranged combat, the distinction between Opposed and Unopposed
> leads to an unexplained point (even given your helpful examples of
> Unopposed shots). Let us say that an archer is firing at someone's back.
> The shot requires a Great result, but he hits. Now the target spins around
> and prepares to dodge the next shots. With his penalties for being wounded,
> the target's Dodge is Poor. How does this effect the shot?
I have actually rewritten this section since the latest posted
version. The archer has to overcome the Dodge, and score *at least*
the same degree task as if it were an Unopposed shot. So, if a degree
task Good were needed to hit at that range, and the archer wins the
Opposed Shot vs. Dodge, by Fair to Mediocre, he just misses his target,
anyway, since he didn't get a Good result.
> That's all for now. Thanks for listening.
Thanks for great feedback!
Andy Skinner
1) I really like the way Scale is handled now. Actually, it is almost
identical to the system I am working on now - which is developed from
Ars Magica. (Ars Magica uses a very similar stat called Size which is 0
for humans, and which modifies both Soak and Damage - but I like the term
Scale better).
OTOH, I find it strange that Scale should act like armor rather than
like Damage Capacity. In an extreme example, a woodsman goes to chop down
a tree. Which would seem more tracktable: the rotten, old (Terrible DmgCap)
30-footer (Scale +10) or the live, tough (Superior DmgCap) sapling
(Scale +4). One would think that the old tree could be cut down, but taking
a long time, while the sapling might be a struggle to bite into with an
axe. Instead, it is the opposite. Because of its size, the old tree simply
turns the axe; while the younger one is the long, slow job.
I see the two effects (acting as armor or acting as Damage Capacity) as
being orthongal. The size of the tree might have to do with Scale, the
health of the tree with Damage Capacity. The reason that Scale acts in
the same way as armor (subtracting from damage) is to make it parallel to
the way Scale affects damage done by you, in adding to damage. I wanted to
be able to shift Scale around and have it still work in the same way. You
can only adjust Damage Capacity so far, especially downwards. Scale can
be adjusted infinitely in either direction, and as long as your opponent
is somewhere near the same scale as you, damage works in the same way that
it would if you were about human scale. Healthiness (the way you can
handle wounds, Damage Capacity) is on the same scale no matter size. You
can't limit scale.
Even though Scale (and Mass) affects damage in the same way that armor does,
I don't think of it as armor. Just because they do the same thing doesn't
mean they _are_ the same thing. :-) Still, Steffan had a lot of trouble
accepting this, so I can see it might take some thinking about. Limiting
variation within a race of Scale for taking damage (Mass) was the compromise
made, and was probably necessary.
Thanks for comments on scale.
2) It seems to me that Racial Max and Min are more trouble than they
are worth - noting the amount of warnings concerning their use. Given the
graininess of FUDGE, I'm not sure that the difference between the 99th
and the 99.9th percentile should warrant a level change.
The difference between someone at Racial Max and someone at Superb is larger
than the difference between the percentiles. The world records for lifting
and stuff are so large, that, if we set the scale so Superb matched those
maximums, all the Strength levels would jump too much. I like Max because
I think Inigo Montoya was a Superb swordsman, and Wesley was better--I think
he was a Human Max Swordsman.
andy
Andy Skinner
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: FUDGE Critical Results (was Yetanother FUDGE Dice post)
References: <1993Jun8.0...@oz.plymouth.edu>
<1993Jun8.1...@news.columbia.edu>
<1993Jun8.2...@oz.plymouth.edu>
<1993Jun10.0...@news.columbia.edu>
Distribution:
In article <1993Jun10.0...@news.columbia.edu> jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
1) I really like the way Scale is handled now. Actually, it is almost
identical to the system I am working on now - which is developed from
Ars Magica. (Ars Magica uses a very similar stat called Size which is 0
for humans, and which modifies both Soak and Damage - but I like the term
Scale better).
OTOH, I find it strange that Scale should act like armor rather than
like Damage Capacity. In an extreme example, a woodsman goes to chop down
a tree. Which would seem more tracktable: the rotten, old (Terrible DmgCap)
30-footer (Scale +10) or the live, tough (Superior DmgCap) sapling
(Scale +4). One would think that the old tree could be cut down, but taking
a long time, while the sapling might be a struggle to bite into with an
axe. Instead, it is the opposite. Because of its size, the old tree simply
turns the axe; while the younger one is the long, slow job.
I see the two effects (acting as armor or acting as Damage Capacity) as
being orthongal. The size of the tree might have to do with Scale, the
health of the tree with Damage Capacity. The reason that Scale acts in
the same way as armor (subtracting from damage) is to make it parallel to
the way Scale affects damage done by you, in adding to damage. I wanted to
be able to shift Scale around and have it still work in the same way. You
can only adjust Damage Capacity so far, especially downwards. Scale can
be adjusted infinitely in either direction, and as long as your opponent
is somewhere near the same scale as you, damage works in the same way that
it would if you were about human scale. Healthiness (the way you can
handle wounds, Damage Capacity) is on the same scale no matter size. You
can't limit scale.
Even though Scale (and Mass) affects damage in the same way that armor does,
I don't think of it as armor. Just because they do the same thing doesn't
mean they _are_ the same thing. :-) Still, Steffan had a lot of trouble
accepting this, so I can see it might take some thinking about. Limiting
variation within a race of Scale for taking damage (Mass) was the compromise
made, and was probably necessary.
Thanks for comments on scale.
2) It seems to me that Racial Max and Min are more trouble than they
are worth - noting the amount of warnings concerning their use. Given the
graininess of FUDGE, I'm not sure that the difference between the 99th
and the 99.9th percentile should warrant a level change.
The difference between someone at Racial Max and someone at Superb is larger
than the difference between the percentiles. The world records for lifting
and stuff are so large, that, if we set the scale so Superb matched those
maximums, all the Strength levels would jump too much. I like Max because
I think Inigo Montoya was a Superb swordsman, and Wesley was better--I think
he was a Human Max Swordsman.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>In article <1993Jun10.0...@news.columbia.edu> jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>
> OTOH, I find it strange that Scale should act like armor rather than
> like Damage Capacity. In an extreme example, a woodsman goes to chop down
> a tree. Which would seem more tracktable: the rotten, old (Terrible DmgCap)
> 30-footer (Scale +10) or the live, tough (Superior DmgCap) sapling
> (Scale +4). One would think that the old tree could be cut down, but taking
> a long time, while the sapling might be a struggle to bite into with an
> axe. Instead, it is the opposite. Because of its size, the old tree simply
> turns the axe; while the younger one is the long, slow job.
>
>I see the two effects (acting as armor or acting as Damage Capacity) as
>being orthongal. The size of the tree might have to do with Scale, the
>health of the tree with Damage Capacity.
This is true. You can represent your example, John, by giving the
Scale 10 tree Terrible Damage Capacity, and the Scale 4 tree Superb
Damage Capacity. This would accurately represent the healthiness of
the sapling and the rottenness of the old tree. Try it - you'll see
what I mean.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>3) The notation of all personality as 'Faults' still somewhat bothers
> me. Have you considered making general note about 'Personality Traits'
> as distinguished from more game-mechanical traits. I think traits like
> 'Courageous' are hard to group under 'Faults'.
Other terms to use instead of (or in addition to?) fault:
Distinctive Feature
Distinction
Distinguishing Characteristic
Singularity
Peculiarity
Personal Identity
Idiosyncrasy
All are big words, which is not an asset; not all are appropriate
umbrella terms (lameness is hardly an idiosyncrasy, for example).
Any other suggestions?
John H Kim
>>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> OTOH, I find it strange that Scale should act like armor rather than
>>like Damage Capacity. In an extreme example, a woodsman goes to chop down
>>a tree. Which would seem more tracktable: the rotten, old (Terrible DmgCap)
>>30-footer (Scale +10) or the live, tough (Superior DmgCap) sapling
>>(Scale +4). One would think that the old tree could be cut down, but taking
>>a long time, while the sapling might be a struggle to bite into with an
>>axe. Instead, it is the opposite. Because of its size, the old tree simply
>>turns the axe; while the younger one is the long, slow job.
>
>Scale 10 tree Terrible Damage Capacity, and the Scale 4 tree Superb
>Damage Capacity. This would accurately represent the healthiness of
>the sapling and the rottenness of the old tree. Try it - you'll see
>what I mean.
Uh, Steffan, if you'll read close - that's exactly what I did. The
result is that the woodsman cannot get anywhere into the old tree - since
with Scale 10 he is (most likely) unable to get any positive damage. (Say
+3 damage for the axe, even a +7 hit does no damage). The young, tough tree,
OTOH, just requires more blows - each blow will do some damage and slowly
wear it down.
My intuitive feeling on this would be the opposite: the large, rotten
tree is the slow job, while the tough tree is more likely to bounce hits
while taking no damage. Of course, you can represent this by giving the
young tree armor to represent its hardness, but I don't think that's e
whole of the problem.
Andy Skinner
Steffan O'Sullivan:
>This is true. You can represent your example, John, by giving the
>Scale 10 tree Terrible Damage Capacity, and the Scale 4 tree Superb
>Damage Capacity. This would accurately represent the healthiness of
>the sapling and the rottenness of the old tree. Try it - you'll see
>what I mean.
Uh, Steffan, if you'll read close - that's exactly what I did. The
result is that the woodsman cannot get anywhere into the old tree - since
with Scale 10 he is (most likely) unable to get any positive damage. (Say
+3 damage for the axe, even a +7 hit does no damage). The young, tough tree,
OTOH, just requires more blows - each blow will do some damage and slowly
wear it down.
My intuitive feeling on this would be the opposite: the large, rotten
tree is the slow job, while the tough tree is more likely to bounce hits
while taking no damage. Of course, you can represent this by giving the
young tree armor to represent its hardness, but I don't think that's e
whole of the problem.
I didn't see that that was the specific point you were trying to make, but
now that I see it I think it is a good point. The mechanics fit the concepts
better with what you are saying. Does the same thing apply to people/monsters
and such? I don't know. The deciding factor for me, however, is that it is
lots harder to scale damage capacity. I don't know how to scale it downwards,
especially in a way that meshes with scaling strength and damage. One of the
things this scale system was supposed to fix was having to change damage
capacity levels around depending on your opponent. Any thoughts on how to
get the best of both? I think Steffan would like it better if damage capacity
was scaled with size, but we just didn't see anyway to do it nicely.
The current system is meant to be an approximation. It is intended to make
equal-scaled creatures' fights similar to each other, and to allow easy
scale changes. My sword blows against the allosaurus aren't going to seem
like much to it. The probabilities of occasionally going up high enough to
get through armor and scale penalties are supposed to approximate doing lots
of little damage and accumulating. The other way is more direct, but just
doesn't scale.
Open to thoughts!
John H Kim
after sending it.
s...@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>3) The notation of all personality as 'Faults' still somewhat bothers
>> me. Have you considered making general note about 'Personality Traits'
>> as distinguished from more game-mechanical traits. I think traits like
>> 'Courageous' are hard to group under 'Faults'.
>
>Other terms to use instead of (or in addition to?) fault:
...
>All are big words, which is not an asset; not all are appropriate
>umbrella terms (lameness is hardly an idiosyncrasy, for example).
OK - what I was thinking of would be a slight redefinition of
the term Fault. Currently, Fault is defined as,
Fault: any trait that limits a character's actions, or earns him a bad
reaction from other people.
As such, it includes all personality traits. For example, a high
Willpower limits a character's actions: he cannot knuckle under authority
against his better judgement - doing so would be out of character for him.
Still, this is not described as a Fault elsewhere in FUDGE.
I would redefine Fault as:
Fault: any trait that isn't an attribute or skill, but is something
negative for the character.
Thus it will be directly the opposite of a Gift. In this view,
Personality Traits can be Faults, Gifts, or Attributes depending on how the
GM/player views them. For example, a GM in a Horror game might want players
to have Courage as an Attribute - so they might have to make Courage tests
to face up to certain monstrosities. In other games, Cowardice might be a
Fault; here it is a low Attribute.
I suggest there be a separate section to deal with the problems
of Personality Traits. Personality Traits are unique in how they interface
with role-playing. The most basic question is what shoudl the GM do if, in
his opinion, a player is acting out of character. I think the section should
just give the GM options, forcing him to consider the issue. Some suggestions
might be:
1) Advice the player that you think he is out of character.
2) Give the player less experience.
3) Force the character to act somewhat differently than the player says.
This section should emphasize that Personality Traits can be
Attributes, Gifts, or Faults depending on how the GM or player views them.
mil...@wharton.upenn.edu
used scale 10 for it. 30 feet is not large for a tree. Perhaps there
should be a note about dispersed structures like trees having lower
Scales than flesh and bone structures, like, say, giant lizards.
I would think of a scale 10 tree being something like an ancient Baobob.
That would indeed be (practically) impossible for one person to chop
down.
--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MIL...@wharton.upenn.edu
S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys
Bill Seurer
|> Uh, Steffan, if you'll read close - that's exactly what I did. The
|> result is that the woodsman cannot get anywhere into the old tree - since
|> with Scale 10 he is (most likely) unable to get any positive damage. (Say
|> +3 damage for the axe, even a +7 hit does no damage). The young, tough tree,
|> OTOH, just requires more blows - each blow will do some damage and slowly
|> wear it down.
|> My intuitive feeling on this would be the opposite: the large, rotten
|> tree is the slow job, while the tough tree is more likely to bounce hits
|> while taking no damage. Of course, you can represent this by giving the
|> young tree armor to represent its hardness, but I don't think that's e
|> whole of the problem.
Actually, you'll make quick work of a small tree with an axe no matter
what its "age".
Substitute a blunt weapon and you get a different result. You may be
either able to whack the small tree off in one blow or not significantly
hurt it at all. Unless it is REALLY rotten the large tree won't be
affected at all by a blunt weapon.
If this is how scale is supposed to work it is broken. Or maybe this is
just a bad example. You can cut down ANY tree with a hatchet given
enough time and none of the blows will "bounce". Of course the kind of
weapon just muddies the waters here.
How about we substitute a Hobbit attacking a normal human or a giant with
a knife (sword to him). That might make a better example.
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Internet: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com America On-Line: BillS...@aol.com
John H Kim
>I think the reason John had trouble with the 30 foot tree is that he
>used scale 10 for it. 30 feet is not large for a tree. Perhaps there
>should be a note about dispersed structures like trees having lower
>Scales than flesh and bone structures, like, say, giant lizards.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that
a 2 ton tree should have a lower Scale than a 2 ton lizard?
It seems to me that flesh is much easier to cut through than wood,
while at the same time it has a greater density. Therefore pound for pound
(remember that Scale uses mass as its base) a tree should be much tougher
than an equal mass beast. True that a tree is somewhat dispersed in that
it has leaves and small branches - but those are are relatively non-vital
(compared to a beast's limbs and toes), and they are only a small portion
of the mass.
This is a bit off topic though - as really we are not interested in
assigning Damage Capacities to trees. (or, at least, I'm not @-)
>
>I would think of a scale 10 tree being something like an ancient Baobob.
>That would indeed be (practically) impossible for one person to chop
>down.
Well, I was using the estimate of mass. A 30 foot tall, 2 foot
diameter pole of wood (different in shape from the tree, but similar in
mass) will weigh several tons. The estimate for Scale was that 1.5x mass
would be +1 scale. Assuming approx 150lbs for Scale 0, Scale 10 gives
maybe 4 tons - which I guessed to around the right range.
My own explanation of the bias in the example would be this:
Even a 2 foot diameter tree, though, will take a great many hearty
chops of an axe to fell (50+ at least, IMO). On our hit point scale, each of
these blows would be less than 1 hit. Therefore it is ignored. This is a
decent approximation, I think, for most purposes.
My reservation is somewhat an esthetic one. We use this approximation
for *size* but not for *toughness*, when - if I had to use one or the other -
I would let very large things be slowly chopped down and approximate that
very tough things took no damage from relatively trivial attacks.
John H Kim
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>|> My intuitive feeling on this would be the opposite: the large, rotten
>|> tree is the slow job, while the tough tree is more likely to bounce hits
>|> while taking no damage. Of course, you can represent this by giving the
>|> young tree armor to represent its hardness, but I don't think that's e
>|> whole of the problem.
>
>Actually, you'll make quick work of a small tree with an axe no matter
>what its "age".
Well, live wood tends to 'grip' the blade as it cuts in, making your
job enormously more difficult. And it the axe is somewhat blunted, you might
just 'bruise' live wood while you can actually chop into soft cork.
>
>How about we substitute a Hobbit attacking a normal human or a giant with
>a knife (sword to him). That might make a better example.
Fine. I just used a tree because it was something where the reality
was verifiable: one can go out and experimentally test things if you have
any doubts.
Edward James
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>3) The notation of all personality as 'Faults' still somewhat bothers
>> me. Have you considered making general note about 'Personality Traits'
>> as distinguished from more game-mechanical traits. I think traits like
>> 'Courageous' are hard to group under 'Faults'.
>Other terms to use instead of (or in addition to?) fault:
[other terms deleted]
Faults, if we are going to keep them in the Objective Creation System,
ought to be faults since they are balancing good stuff like high
attributes and skills. That's the only reason to include them in the
Fudge *system* at all, as far as I'm concerned. If something isn't
part of the system, it is in fact a mere adjective, and need not be
present in the rules at all, or in any particular section of the
character sheet except the description. Surely anyone hip enough to
be playing FUDGE has SOME kind of description written down for his
character besides that required for the system? Well, then, the
things you've been mentioning can go there.
Opinion Voiced By....
Ed Heil
--
Ed ejam...@ursa.calvin.edu nuff said
Edward James
> OK - what I was thinking of would be a slight redefinition of
>the term Fault. Currently, Fault is defined as,
[useful redefinition from 'limiting actions' to 'a negative thing' deleted]
> I suggest there be a separate section to deal with the problems
>of Personality Traits. Personality Traits are unique in how they interface
>with role-playing. The most basic question is what shoudl the GM do if, in
>his opinion, a player is acting out of character. I think the section should
>just give the GM options, forcing him to consider the issue. Some suggestions
>might be:
>1) Advice the player that you think he is out of character.
>2) Give the player less experience.
>3) Force the character to act somewhat differently than the player says.
> This section should emphasize that Personality Traits can be
>Attributes, Gifts, or Faults depending on how the GM or player views them.
Philosophically, I would say that none of the above are appropriate,
except perhaps to D&Ders worrying about alignment. The character's
primary existence is in play, not on the character sheet, and if the
two conflict, I would say that the character sheet was wrong. (If
this conflict violates a rule -- such as a character ignoring a fault
which gave him extra levels for the Obj. Char. System, then I would
say that yes, he's breaking the rules, by MAKING his character sheet
wrong in a way that touches on the system...)
If a novelist wrote one thing about a character's personality in his
own notes, and violated that in the writing of the novel itself, which
was wrong? Or if a Cliff's Notes description of a character in
Shakespeare contradicts the character as he exists in the play, which
is wrong?
Thus, I can not see penalizing a character for straying in play from
his paper existence, because his verbal existence takes precedence --
UNLESS he had made a sort of 'contract' beforehand, by taking a fault
in exchange for a Gift, to play a certain way. Then doing so would be
breaking the rules and should be dealt with -- probably by pointing
out the problem and replaying the scene.
--Ed Heil
Loren Miller
> Even a 2 foot diameter tree, though, will take a great many hearty
>chops of an axe to fell (50+ at least, IMO). On our hit point scale, each of
>these blows would be less than 1 hit. Therefore it is ignored. This is a
>decent approximation, I think, for most purposes.
I rethought what was going on here. Try this on for size.
The FUDGE damage rules assume that every time you hit you hit a different
place. This is perfectly acceptable in combat. No giant is going to stand
around and let someone chop through its leg. However, a tree can't get away
from someone hacking at exactly the same location. If you were attacking a
30 foot tree with an axe, and never hit twice in the same place, then you
would have a futile task in cutting it down. Likewise, chopping down a small
tree would take a long time, but be possible as eventually the damage caused
by the individual chops would weaken its structure significantly.
So all you have to do is add a house rule that says if you get to hit things
in exactly the same spot multiple times then the damage is `scaled' up.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller LO...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when
John H Kim
in FUDGE, since I complained about it. I have never been very happy about
the complicated Damage Capacity chart, and I think I now have an somewhat
elegant replacement for it.
Basically, I want to replace the sliding scale of Damage Capacity
with a sliding scale for damage. This way, Scale and Damage 'Resistance' can
be combined seamlessly. It requires a few starting assumptions:
1) First off, the relation of Scale to Mass is slightly different (this
should look familiar to you, Andy). Instead of +1 Scale <=> x1.5 Mass, I
have +2 Scale <=> x2 Mass. This keeps integer numbers for higher Scale - the
motivation for which will be shown later. (This is only a minor difference).
----
2) The 'hits' for wounds will now all be the same: all creatures take
two hits for each level (as if all creatures had Fair Damage Capacity at
present). Instead of Damage Capacity, there will be an Attribute called
Damage Resistance.
----
3) The sliding scale will be replaced by a scale which relates damage
'level' to number of hits. The damage level is calculated fairly similar
to before: Dmg Lvl =
(Hit Success + Dmg Mod + Attacker's Scale - Target's Scale - Target's DmgRes)
However, after this, the Damage 'Level' is converted to the actual
number of hits by the following relation:
__Dmg Lvl__ __# Hits__
(-3) 'No damage' (optionally 0.5 hits)
(-2) 'No damage' (optionally 0.5 hits)
(-1) 1 : 'Scratch'
0 1
1 = 1
2 = 2 : 'Light Wound'
3 = 3
4 = 4 : 'Serious Wound'
5 6
6 8 : 'Deadly Wound'
7+ 11+: 'Instant Kill'
Note that Damage Levels 1 thru 4 are the same as the number of hits,
and the few other results should not be that hard to remember. The optional
use of half hits allow GM's to handle things like large trees which are
cumulatively wounded in very small amounts. (i.e. twenty 0.5 hits might chop
down the tree). The table could be rescaled or extended quite simply - maybe
you want to have 20 hit points instead of 10, or you are chopping down a
*really* big tree.
At any rate, as you can clearly see, now +2 Scale or +2 Damage
Resistance is exactly the same as having twice as many 'hit points'. This
does result in a slight problem, as the present Terrible DmgCap is only
Poor DmgRes, and the present Superb DmgCap is only Good DmgRes (!). To
resolve this, we could instead have a table like:
Superb/Great DmgRes = -1 Dmg Lvl
Poor DmgRes = +1 Dmg Lvl
Terrible DmgRes = +2 Dmg Lvl
----
4) _Armor_ can either modify the Damage Level (thus acting like Scale)
or actually reduce the number of hits. Which to use I'm not sure, actually.
A club hitting a chainmail suit seems like it would pad the blow from 1
to 0.5 hits, perhaps. OTOH, a knife stabbing into chainmail seems like it
would reduce the hit from 1 to zero. I'm divided on the issue of which to
use as the 'standard'.
----
This seems to work righhht now - but I just worked it out over last
night, so criticism and comments would be appreciated.
John H Kim
of what to do if the player strays outside those Personality Traits. However,
these are not neccessarily options that I approve of - they are simply
choices which commonly used in RPG's.
Edward's comments reminded me that I had forgotten about the most
obvious options:
1) Not to use Personality Traits at all in the game.
2) Allow Personality Traits, but only for the player to remind himself of
his preconceived character. They may be changed at will by the player.
That said, I would like to suggest that there is some point to the
options I have mentioned - that is, they are valid options and should at
least be listed as possibilities.
ejam...@ursa.calvin.edu (Edward James) writes:
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>Personality Traits are unique in how they interface with role-playing. The
>>most basic question is what shoudl the GM do if, in his opinion, a player
>>is acting out of character. I think the section should just give the GM
>>options, forcing him to consider the issue. Some suggestions might be:
>
>The character's primary existence is in play, not on the character sheet,
>and if the two conflict, I would say that the character sheet was wrong.
You seem to be saying that everything which the player does is
automatically 'in character', which I don't think is always true. Many
times players will stray from their preconceived notions of what their
character is for non-game-world reasons. i.e. a player running a primitive
PC might say that his character avoids the electrical wires - even though
his character does not understand the dangger.
Similarly, I think, there are times when a player will have his
character resist temptation or overcome fears in a manner inconsistant
with his original conception. i.e. a player defines his character as having
a fear of bodies of water, but simply forgets about this when the party is
forced to travel by boat.
In general, I prefer the GM to simply remind the player of the
inconsistancy. Also, the GM may take control of the PC in cases of
automatic/reflexive actions. Beyond this I don't approve of - but I listed
them as options anyway, as that is something which should be left up to
the individual GM (in keeping with general FUDGE philosophy).
What I forgot was the option to not have Personality Traits at all,
which certainly is a valid and worthwhile option. I would amend this to my
suggestion.
Steffan O'Sullivan
thought-out FUDGE posts awaiting me, so I'll lump all the same topics
together.
>the term Fault. Currently, Fault is defined as,
>
> reaction from other people.
>
> As such, it includes all personality traits. For example, a high
>Willpower limits a character's actions: he cannot knuckle under authority
>against his better judgement - doing so would be out of character for him.
>Still, this is not described as a Fault elsewhere in FUDGE.
trait that would prevent you from knuckling under if it were in your best
interest, and would indeed be a fault if I were the GM. Strong Will
doesn't mean you *must* resist everything, just that you have a good
chance if you choose to try.
> I would redefine Fault as:
>
>Fault: any trait that isn't an attribute or skill, but is something
> negative for the character.
but I'm not sure it works for FUDGE.
> In this view,
>Personality Traits can be Faults, Gifts, or Attributes depending on how the
>GM/player views them. For example, a GM in a Horror game might want players
>to have Courage as an Attribute - so they might have to make Courage tests
>to face up to certain monstrosities. In other games, Cowardice might be a
>Fault; here it is a low Attribute.
out that clearly. It is sort of hinted at under Gifts. As I said
before, I can rewrite faults to include those same types of hints, and
just leave faults alone, otherwise.
At this point, I'm leaning toward this approach. I may also go with:
> I suggest there be a separate section to deal with the problems
>of Personality Traits
inclinations as GM would be to ask the player if he thinks that's in
keeping, and if so, explain it to me. If his description doesn't match
the character sheet, but is equally limiting, I'd point that out, and ask
if he wants to change the character sheet or his current behavior. If
the current behavior were less limiting, I'd ask him what fault he wanted
to add to make up the difference . . .
Steffan O'Sullivan
out a new system! Impressive.
However, John, I think it creates more problems than it solves. While
you may not like the current table of Damage Capacity, at least the
player only needs to look at it once, at character creation. The GM
should have a copy by him, though, for NPCs created on the spot - I'll
add a sentence to that effect.
But your system is much harder to remember, especially the Terrible,
Poor, Great and Superb (4/7 of the possible levels!) adjustments, and the
trans-4 hits becoming other numbers.
I have a *much* simpler fix for scale, that can be summed up as one
optional rule:
If a fighter is attacking an opponent of larger scale, the player
should record how many hits were stopped by scale. The GM can allow
(1 + Larger Scale - Smaller Scale) accumulated hits to equal one wound
point. So every 11th point of damage (stopped by Scale) from a human
to a Scale 10 tree would count as one hit. This doesn't even take
Loren's suggestion into account, about hitting the same spot over and
over, nor the fact that an old, rotten tree will be a different scale
from a healthy tree of the same size: different densities.
You mathematical types might want to check my conclusions here, but I
think it solves the problem neatly.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>If a fighter is attacking an opponent of larger scale, the player
>should record how many hits were stopped by scale. The GM can allow
>(1 + Larger Scale - Smaller Scale) accumulated hits to equal one wound
>point. So every 11th point of damage (stopped by Scale) from a human
>to a Scale 10 tree would count as one hit. This doesn't even take
>Loren's suggestion into account, about hitting the same spot over and
>over, nor the fact that an old, rotten tree will be a different scale
>from a healthy tree of the same size: different densities.
I want to get more feedback on this. This should, logically, include
any Scale-stopped hits by a *successful* blow, also. So if the sample
character Moose (Scale 0) hits sample character Tarag (Scale 3) for two
points that is stopped by scale, he has done 2 of the 4 needed to score
a hit by the "whittling" down method. If he then hits for 1 point that
gets through Scale + Armor, he has also hit 3 "little" hits stopped by
Scale. Adding this to his previous two scale-stopped hits, gives Tarag
another wound, and one partial hit towards yet another wound. Is this
too much?
Also, the above doesn't figure armor into it. Armor should be reckoned
first, since you hit it before the body. So, after subtracting armor,
any hits *then* stopped by scale count toward whittling the big enemy
down. Example: Tarag is wearing -2 armor, and is Scale 3. Moose hits
him for 4 points of damage, but none get through because of armor and
Scale. Armor stops the first two, but 2 more count as partial hits
toward Tarag for future rounds.
I also want to stress that although Scale acts like armor in the basic
rules, it's *not* armor. There's just a lot more Mass to whittle
down. This method represents the fact that every blow past armor
*does* draw some blood, just not, proportionately, enough to wound.
But cumulatively, they should.
Jonathan Dean
>I have a *much* simpler fix for scale, that can be summed up as one
>optional rule:
>
>If a fighter is attacking an opponent of larger scale, the player
>should record how many hits were stopped by scale. The GM can allow
>(1 + Larger Scale - Smaller Scale) accumulated hits to equal one wound
>point. So every 11th point of damage (stopped by Scale) from a human
>to a Scale 10 tree would count as one hit. This doesn't even take
>Loren's suggestion into account, about hitting the same spot over and
>over, nor the fact that an old, rotten tree will be a different scale
>from a healthy tree of the same size: different densities.
>
>You mathematical types might want to check my conclusions here, but I
>think it solves the problem neatly.
>
There are a few problem with this. First is that it increases the
bookkeeping by a fair amount. Another problem is that a kid with a
butterknife could carve up a redwood given enough time.
Another way to simulate a "leak" effect as described above is to make
a breakpoint where some damage (1 point) gets by the scale of a
creature. This allows natural protection against large attacks and
very small attacks and gives moderate attacks some effect. To make
bookkeeping simple I suggest a breakpoint of 1/2 scale.
For example, a scale 6 critter is hit for 1 or 2 points of damage.
The blow does no effect. However, if it did between 3 and 6 points
then 1 point would get around its defenses. And it would act like
normal armor for attacks that do 7+ points of damage.
In this system armor should definately be applied before scale.
WARNING: This is a untested idea. Comments, suggestions welcome.
--
Jonathan Dean
jd...@nmsu.edu
John H Kim
Well, concerning my proposed damage system: I agree that it is
not simpler than the present system, but I am not convinced that it is any
more difficult. The reason I proposed it was because it was more consistant
with how Scale worked.
In general, I think it takes more time to getting used to, but once
that is done it makes more sense, and handles some things better. I do have
a revision to what I initially wrote to make things easier.
_____
(1) First, Damage Resistance should be changed. Rather than converting,
I would go with my initial suggestion that you just add in DmgRes like all
other factors as a +/- mod.
This then requires a note in character creation that DmgRes values
of Superb(+3) and Terrible(-3) should not be used for realistic humans. This
is based on my judgement that a tough human should not have more than twice
as many 'hit points' as the average human.
_____
(2) I really don't think the DmgLvl -> hits conversion is all that
burdensome. You can write down the chart on your character sheet in the same
way as you currently write down your Dmg Cap.
Also, like the "Terrible"-"Superb" scale, I think that it is easily
gotten used to: There are only a handful results besides the 1-4 range...
-2 is no damage, and +7 is instant kill. And the general rule of +2 lvl =
x2 hits helps as well. I think after a short amount of play the table will
no longer be used.
I had considered an alternate table with no rounding:
__DmgLvl__ __#Hits__
(-2)-(-1) No damage (optionally 0.5 hits)
0 - 1 1 hit
2 - 3 2 hits
4 - 5 4 hits
6 - 7 8 hits
8+ Instant kill
Still, I thought the other table was easier, even though there were less
entries on this chart - because of the 1-4 range where DmgLvl = #hits.
Overall, I agree that it requires more 'start-up' time than DmgCap,
but I think after a few sessions, no one will look at the DmgLvl chart, while
with the present system I think the GM will still have to consult the DmgCap
chart for NPC's without full write-ups - since the DmgCap chart is more
difficult, and does not follow a simple algorithm (+2 <=> x2) like the DmgLvl
chart.
_____
(3) Concerning SOS's alternate 'low damage' proposal:
>
>If a fighter is attacking an opponent of larger scale, the player
>should record how many hits were stopped by scale. The GM can allow
>(1 + Larger Scale - Smaller Scale) accumulated hits to equal one wound pt.
...
>You mathematical types might want to check my conclusions here, but I
>think it solves the problem neatly.
I am not at all clear on how this works. Let us say you have a large
(say 10-15) group of hunters attacking a decrepid but enormous wyrm with
spears and bows.
The hunters have +3 damage, say, and are equally skilled fighters
as the slower but more experienced wyrm. The wyrm is DmgCap Poor, Scale +6.
Now the hunters can score 1 hit positive damage on a +4 result in combat,
but on average they will get a result of '-3' hits.
If your system is taken literally, it would appear that any 7 attacks
by the hunters counts as a 'hit' - regardless of whether it was just 0 damage
or -6 damage according to the roll. This gets even more complicated if you
have a burly leader to the hunters who is Scale +1.
The other thought is too complicated to imagine: where 0 damage does
a 1/2 hit, and -6 damage does 1/7 hit, etc.
In contrast, I think my system is much easier to understand and
workable. The GM has the option of taking half-hits or even quarter-hits
into account. The original damage table can be extended rather obviously:
__DmgLvl__ __#hits__
(-5) - (-4) 1/4 : quarter-hit
(-3) - (-2) 1/2 : half-hit
(-1) - (+1) 1 hit
(Note to math-sticklers: I have rounded off various numbers from
the strict exponential scale. I.e. +1 DmgLvl would be 1.4 hits, which is
rounded down to 1. (-3) DmgLvl would be 0.35, which is rounded up to a
half-hit.)
The burly leader presents no additional problem - nor would it be
a problem if the bows did only +2 damage, as opposed to the spear's +3.
etcetera.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>not simpler than the present system, but I am not convinced that it is any
>more difficult. The reason I proposed it was because it was more consistant
>with how Scale worked.
> In general, I think it takes more time to getting used to, but once
>that is done it makes more sense, and handles some things better. I do have
>a revision to what I initially wrote to make things easier.
I haven't understood it enough to comment on it yet. I'll try to grasp
it and give feedback later. Right now, I'll just answer the questions
on my proposal:
>(3) Concerning SOS's alternate 'low damage' proposal:
>>
>>If a fighter is attacking an opponent of larger scale, the player
>>should record how many hits were stopped by scale. The GM can allow
>>(1 + Larger Scale - Smaller Scale) accumulated hits to equal one wound pt.
>
> I am not at all clear on how this works. Let us say you have a large
>(say 10-15) group of hunters attacking a decrepid but enormous wyrm with
>spears and bows.
> The hunters have +3 damage, say, and are equally skilled fighters
>as the slower but more experienced wyrm. The wyrm is DmgCap Poor, Scale +6.
>Now the hunters can score 1 hit positive damage on a +4 result in combat,
>but on average they will get a result of '-3' hits.
All right, it would look like this. Let's say that the wyrm has a
Tough Hide that acts like 2 points of armor, just to bring armor into
it. Suppose 6 of the humans hit in the first combat round, and they
get results of: +1, +1, +1, +2, +2, +3 in the combat. Adding in their
damage bonus, these become: +4, +4, +4, +5, +6. Now we subtract for
the wyrm's armor, which brings the hits down to: +2, +2, +2, +3, +3,
+4.
At this point, we subtract the wyrm's Scale difference, which is 6
greater than the humans' Scale. Effectively, no human has scored well
enough to inflict a wound on the wyrm by himself: the best is reduced
by the Scale to a 0 result. But if we remember that Mass does not
equal armor, but only represents a lot of bulk to hit before a hit
*really* hurts, then we can keep track of partial hits. (And remember,
this is an OPTIONAL rule!!!) In this case, since the Scale difference
is 6, it takes 7 hits absorbed by Scale to equal one wound. We see
that after armor, 16 hits were stopped by Scale. So the wyrm takes 2
hits, and has two partial hits which don't count until more are
scored. Since you said the wyrm has Poor DamCap, this means it's just
Scratched, but the next wound will Hurt it.
Is this clearer now? Any more acceptable? I thought it elegant, but
so far, only those who don't like it have spoken up, either in posts or
e-mail, alas . . .
John H Kim
Whoops. It seems that I misinterpreted Steffan's damage proposal in
my last posting. Please ignore that (I'll try to cancel and repost, but I
won't guarantee that it will work) and let me try again.
The example is that you have a band of hunters attacking a huge
but decrepid wyrm with spears and bows. The opponents are equal in skill;
the hunters are +3 damage; the wyrm is DmgCap Poor, Scale +5. (Slight
change from before, note).
Now before applying Scale, the hunters could do from 0 to 8 hits.
Now the damage they do is:
Pre-Scale Hits Post-Scale hits
0 0
1 1/6
2 2/6
...
5 5/6
6 1 hit (same as before)
7 2 hits
This all seems relatively smooth and sensible. The weaknesses I see are:
(1) The hunters are led by a burly (Scale +1) hulk. Now the leader does
damage in fifth's of a hit, while the rest are doing sixth's.
(2) In a similar case, a man is being assaulted by dozens of blowgun
darts of Ouchie tribe. Now the Scale of the Ouchie's is really not an
issue here: we can say for technical purposes that they are full size, but
tend to be weak due to malnutrition.
Now the GM decides at the end that the blowgun darts do -3 damage,
taking into account the Ouchie's poor lung strength. It would appear by
parallel that the darts ought to be able to do quarter or 1/5 hits to a
human, the same way that arrows are able to do 1/6 hits to the wyrm. But
according to this system, they do not.
I would appear that more than just Scale must be taken into account
in the fractional damage consideration. Should we say Str+Scale figures
into the fraction? But that will play hell with the hunter example above,
since now hunter's of different Strength as well as those of different size
will produce incompatible fractions.
_____
I would re-emphasize here that all these are *rare* breakdown cases.
For most purposes, I think Steffan's rule works just fine. However, I think
a fully consistant system (the log scale to damage to match that of Scale)
is fairly simple once you get used to it, and it eliminates these
lingering doubts.
John H Kim
>>I would redefine Fault as:
>>Fault: any trait that isn't an attribute or skill, but is something
>> negative for the character.
>
>I admit this is more in keeping with the every-day definition of fault,
>but I'm not sure it works for FUDGE.
>
>> In this view, Personality Traits can be Faults, Gifts, or Attributes
>>depending on how the GM/player views them. For example, a GM in a Horror
>>game might want players to have Courage as an Attribute - so they might
>>have to make Courage tests to face up to certain monstrosities. In other
>>games, Cowardice might be a Fault; here it is a low Attribute.
>
>The present system doesn't hinder this, though I admit it isn't spelled
>out that clearly. It is sort of hinted at under Gifts. As I said
>before, I can rewrite faults to include those same types of hints, and
>just leave faults alone, otherwise.
OK. What concerned me was that you had said that under the FUDGE
definition, Courage would be a Fault. As a Fault, it is hard to also
classify it as a Gift or Attribute. Explaining that this is not the
contradiction it appears to be would be good, IMO.
I still think this is easiest to do with a separate section for
Personality Traits, but then, I'm not the best writer in the world - and
I understand you want to keep separate sections to a minimum.
Other than that I pretty much agree with you. (I don't really agree
about stubbornness vs. willpower, but I think that is largely a matter of
semantics).
Steffan O'Sullivan
[responding to my "fix" of the scale problem:]
>There are a few problem with this. First is that it increases the
>bookkeeping by a fair amount. Another problem is that a kid with a
>butterknife could carve up a redwood given enough time.
The first objection is true, which is why it would be strictly
optional. The second objection is either handled by giving the tree an
armor value, or is invalid because, given enough time, a kid with a
butter knife *could* carve up a redwood. I don't know which.
>Another way to simulate a "leak" effect as described above is to make
>a breakpoint where some damage (1 point) gets by the scale of a
>creature. This allows natural protection against large attacks and
>very small attacks and gives moderate attacks some effect. To make
>bookkeeping simple I suggest a breakpoint of 1/2 scale.
>
This may work, but will need playtesting. Maybe Andy could try it in
the simulator if he's willing. It is, I admit, simpler than my
proposal, and if it gives statistically similar results, I'm willing to
go with it.
Steffan O'Sullivan
intelligently on it.
First: on my own "fix" - yes, I understand now all the holes in it,
thanks. It's not a blanket fix, I admit.
John's: I *think* this is mathematically superior to mine - I'm not sure
until we work out examples using same Scale fighters and different scale
fighters, and compare to the current system.
However, I still don't think it is a "gamewise" superior system. There
are a couple of problems:
1) you are assuming that damage resistance is linked to strength in the
ratios they increase. I don't see this as being true. As you point
out yourself, Superb Damage Resistance makes no sense under this
system. But Superb Strength isn't even at Human Max. Therefore, I
would contest that my +3 <~> x1.5 of Damage Capacity is closer to the
truth. That is, human "hit points" and strength go up at different
ratios, just as dexterity and strength increase at different ratios in
humans.
2) You are unaware of all the e-mail between Andy and I concerning
Scale ratios, but we covered a lot of possibilities. +2 <=> x2 was a
strong contender up until the last minute. My major problem with it,
though, was that Scale went up too slowly: a creature with the strength
of 20 men is of a higher scale than if you used the 1.5 modifier. (I
don't remember the exact difference, but even at that low level, it was
something like Scale 10 as opposed to Scale 7: significant difference.)
Adopting your solution would mean that I would have to redo the Scale
ratio chart in Section 2.32, Scale Correlations, and this would mean
that humans would have a tougher time beating beasties. This is
counter to the heroic nature of games that even have such beasties at
all.
OTOH, keeping the scale at 1.5 but using your system would mean the
damage would go up too quickly: a result of 4 would mean 5 hits in such
a system. So either the damage goes up too quickly, or the Scale goes
up too slowly - neither is a desirable result to my mind.
3) A system that gives a result of 5, but that means 6 hits, is not
intuitive. One hit should be one hit or the game is hard to grasp.
FUDGE should not be hard to grasp.
Based on these feelings, I'd have to reject it. I'm still open to be
convinced, and maybe Andy could run some simulations and see how the
systems compare with each other - or maybe he's not interested in such
detailed programming. (That is, no stress, Andy: only do it if you
feel like it.) I'd like to investigate Jonathon Dean's suggestion at
this point. To be honest, I *like* the current Damage Capacity rule -
I don't find the table obtrusive or ugly or detailed at all.
Andy Skinner
Based on these feelings, I'd have to reject it. I'm still open to be
convinced, and maybe Andy could run some simulations and see how the
systems compare with each other
I may have a big scale and damage fest a little later in the simulator,
but I'm too busy right now. Maybe next week, and I expect things will
change between now and then.
By the way, I'll probably post the simulator (it has improved a good bit since
the last time it was posted) as soon as Steffan posts FUDGE again.
I will probably need a fairly well-detailed description of:
* Steffan's suggestion (I think I have it down, as he intends it, anyway),
* the posting about the "leak" method (sorry, I forgot who proposed it), and
* John's proposal. This one I might have enough info on, if I put together
a couple of posts and try to come up with something. I think I might
have to make a different version of the simulator for it, rather than just
making it an option, since it works a bit differently. But I still haven't
had much time for it yet.
If anyone is extremely interested in the simulator in the meantime, send
me mail. If it is halfway between changes, I make no guarantees.
John H Kim
of these is easily fixable, as will be seen.
s...@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes: [re. my proposal]
>1) you are assuming that damage resistance is linked to strength in the
>ratios they increase. I don't see this as being true.
I guess I didn't explain this very clearly. This is the ugly part
about the system. Damage Resistance (in my revised version) is not the
same as other attributes. Rather, the 'human max' for Damage Resistance is
only +2 (Great) and 'human min' for DmgRes is -2 (Poor).
This requires some special consideration of DmgRes as an attribute
during character creation - but then, DmgCap also requires special
consideration.
>
>2) +2 <=> x2 was a strong contender up until the last minute. My major
>problem with it, though, was that Scale went up too slowly: a creature with
>the strength of 20 men is of a higher scale than if you used the 1.5 mod.
>... This is counter to the heroic nature of games ...
>
>OTOH, keeping the scale at 1.5 but using your system would mean the
>damage would go up too quickly:
It appears that what you want is that x2 Mass does not mean x2 HP.
Actually, that's easy to do in my system. Just keep that +2 DmgLvl = x2 hits,
and say that +1 Scale = x1.5 Mass. That is: use my system as is, but change
the Scale <=> Mass conversion back to the way it was before.
Mathematically what this means is that effective 'Hit Points' and
Strength are proportional to (Mass ^ 0.94). A creature which is 24 times
as massive is only 20 times as strong/tough.
This makes some sense - small creatures can use their strength more
effectively than large creatures. Thus ants can lift many times their own
body weight; and 20' humans could barely support their own weight.
>
>3) A system that gives a result of 5, but that means 6 hits, is not
>intuitive. One hit should be one hit or the game is hard to grasp.
>FUDGE should not be hard to grasp.
Perhaps. OTOH, I have not noticed any problem with TORG players
adjusting to the table, or with Ars Magica players converting +5 damage roll
to 1 extra damage level. I admit that it is non-intuitive, but I don't think
that this makes it hard to grasp. It does appear odd at first, and takes some
effort to adjust - certainly this is not a desirable feature, but I don't
think it influences continued play very much.
********
I would take a moment to go over my own view of the pro's and con's of
the systems:
__Pro's__ __Con's__
My proposal: Handles dmg<1 well DmgRes is special case attr.
Consistant math w/ Scale Non-intuitive DmgLvl -> Hits
Current sys: Simpler calc of dmg DmgCap requires special chart
Mass seems like armor
Some breakdowns for dmg<1
I like my proposal, obviously - that's why I proposed it. However, I
think it is a question of priorities. The main problem with systems like my
proposal is that they create considerable 'overhead' in getting used to the
system. FUDGE already has overhead of the named attribute ratings (Ter-Sup),
the success table, and Scale. The question is - how much overhead is too
much?
Steffan O'Sullivan
>Actually, that's easy to do in my system. Just keep that +2 DmgLvl = x2 hits,
>and say that +1 Scale = x1.5 Mass. That is: use my system as is, but change
>the Scale <=> Mass conversion back to the way it was before.
How does this affect fighters of the same Scale facing each other?
I need an example!
> Perhaps. OTOH, I have not noticed any problem with TORG players
>adjusting to the table, or with Ars Magica players converting +5 damage roll
>to 1 extra damage level.
I have bad news for you, John: I dislike both of those games, partially
for those very reasons. I never liked that aspect of TORG or AM - so
it was something that I not only noticed, but felt. I don't want it in
FUDGE!
> __Pro's__ __Con's__
>My proposal: Handles dmg<1 well DmgRes is special case attr.
> Consistant math w/ Scale Non-intuitive DmgLvl -> Hits
>
>Current sys: Simpler calc of dmg DmgCap requires special chart
> Mass seems like armor
> Some breakdowns for dmg<1
and more intuitive.
Breakdown cases are rare
and easily fixed (see
below).
> I like my proposal, obviously - that's why I proposed it. However, I
>think it is a question of priorities. The main problem with systems like my
>proposal is that they create considerable 'overhead' in getting used to the
>system. FUDGE already has overhead of the named attribute ratings (Ter-Sup),
>the success table, and Scale. The question is - how much overhead is too
>much?
To my mind, this proposal is too much, alas. I'm also still not sure
how it would work in practice - I need to sit down and think out three
or four combats involving same scale, slightly different scale,
radically different scale, etc. Also use Wilbur and the Dragon, and
McMurtree from the main FUDGE text.
I have also reviewed Jonathon Dean's proposal, and am torn between
adopting it and rejecting it as too potent. For example, Moose (Scale
0) fighting Tarag (Scale 3, -2 armor): Moose hits Tarag, for 5 points.
2 are stopped by armor, and the other 3 by Scale. But because Moose
got past one half of Tarag's Scale, Tarag takes a hit. The problem is
that Moose is strong enough (+2) and uses a dull sword (+2), which
means that given he auto- matically gets at least a +1 when he wins,
he'll hit with at least a +5. This would *always* be one point of
damage for Tarag. Sometimes I think this is too potent: Scale should
stop a hit sometime. OTOH, I realize that +5 to a Scale 0 human is a
severe hit - don't get hit by Moose. So Tarag's Scale *is* helping
him, and that one hit per turn is a heck of a lot better than 3 hits
per turn. But again, Moose would do the same +1 to a Scale 2 character
or Scale 4 character each turn, so perhaps it's too static. Back and
forth I go.
But I have now arrived at what I think is the most simple and
FUDGE-like solution of all:
Simply mention in the scale section that the problem can exist, and if
the GM is bothered by it, to use the optional Damage Roll mentioned in
the text. That will factor in a random amount to bring the damage up to
+1 now and then when it just falls short occasionally. It will, in
fact, probably average very closely to adding up partial hits!
I think . . . :-)
John H Kim
Well, it appears that the 'non-intuitiveness' is the key issue for
you, which leads to your rejecting it. That's fine, I suppose. I think it's
a matter of style.
I don't think it is generally a 'game-wise better system' - but
rather that you prefer FUDGE to have a different style: like the cinematic
effect of men being able to more easily defeat large beasts.
s...@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> Perhaps. OTOH, I have not noticed any problem with TORG players
>>adjusting to the table, or with Ars Magica players converting +5 damage roll
>>to 1 extra damage level.
>
>I have bad news for you, John: I dislike both of those games, partially
>for those very reasons. I never liked that aspect of TORG or AM - so it
>was something that I not only noticed, but felt. I don't want it in FUDGE!
Hmmm. So have you actually seen other players who have had trouble
adjusting to this? You see, I am designing a game which is similar to Ars
Magica in many ways, and this concerns me.
As far as I have seen, systems like the (Ter-Sup) scale and my damage
table are fine once the initial learning is done with. Nearly all players
I have seen quickly pick up the basics of a system: such as the peculiar
way of counting BODY from normal attacks in the Hero system, and others.
As long as they are simple & commonly used, it is no problem.
IME, what seem to cause problems are special case rules - i.e. in
Hero, Move Through is a full phase action (not 1/2ph like most attacks); in
GURPS, you can't All-Out attack in Close Combat. In FUDGE, perhaps that the
extra damage modifier roll can't reduce an attack to 0 hits, or more than
double the hits otherwise found, unless the attack is 0 hits, in which case
it can increase it to a max of 1.
>
>Simply mention in the scale section that the problem can exist, and if
>the GM is bothered by it, to use the optional Damage Roll mentioned in
>the text. That will factor in a random amount to bring the damage up to
>+1 now and then when it just falls short occasionally. It will, in
>fact, probably average very closely to adding up partial hits!
Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the extra damage roll be used always,
or only when damage is reduced to zero because of Scale? I think adding an
extra roll all the time would slow things down significantly.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
> Well, it appears that the 'non-intuitiveness' is the key issue for
>you, which leads to your rejecting it. That's fine, I suppose. I think it's
>a matter of style.
If it could give a result of one hit = one hit; six hits = six hits,
etc., I'd be much more favorably impressed, yes, probably to the point
of incorporating it.
> Hmmm. So have you actually seen other players who have had trouble
>adjusting to this? You see, I am designing a game which is similar to Ars
>Magica in many ways, and this concerns me.
Yes, AM is not the game of choice in this area. A few people tried it,
many disliked it for various reasons. Admittedly, the lack of
one-to-one ratio is but one minor detail. I don't know anyone who
plays it any more, except net friends in other parts of the country.
> IME, what seem to cause problems are special case rules
This is very, very true. I'll look again at the damage roll in FUDGE
and see if I can unspecial-case it, thanks. Any other irritating
special cases in FUDGE?
[I wrote:]
>>Simply mention in the scale section that the problem can exist, and if
>>the GM is bothered by it, to use the optional Damage Roll mentioned in
>>the text. That will factor in a random amount to bring the damage up to
>>+1 now and then when it just falls short occasionally. It will, in
>>fact, probably average very closely to adding up partial hits!
>
> Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the extra damage roll be used always,
>or only when damage is reduced to zero because of Scale? I think adding an
>extra roll all the time would slow things down significantly.
I'm suggesting it still be optional, but simply point out to an
individual GM that this may be a case to use it if she's bothered by
scale acting like armor. If a blow is stopped by scale, a damage roll
in this case can't make the blow any worse. It can only leave it as a
no-damage hit, or, occasionally, raise it to a max of one hit. I think
that would actually simulate the slow whittling away of bulk that scale
really represents. She wouldn't have to use a damage roll at any other
time - only when scale stops all hits. If I use this - and I'm still
looking for feedback on it - I'll phrase it so it reads that way,
thanks.