From: cwebster@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Corran J. Webster)
Subject: Equipment and Dice Systems for FUDGE
Summary: An equipment system (or skeleton of one) for FUDGE plus
          yet another Dice System...
Keywords: FUDGE equipment dice
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 02:41:13 GMT

Hi there,

I've been following the discussion on rec.games.design for a couple of
weeks now (I've downloaded the last two full versions of FUDGE). FUGDE
looks interesting.

In any case, I have noticed a lacking in the rules, in that
they are a good system for describing characters, there is very little
about equipment.

OK, so why is anything needed anyway?

Special equipment plays a fairly big role in lots of campaign types:
Fantasy ("The Vorpal Blade went snicker snack!"), Superhero ("Hand me
the Bat-thingy, Robin!"), Cyberpunk ("I jack into my CyberSystems-1000
deck"), SF ("I get out my language translator and speak to the
alien..."), etc. About the only genre which won't use equipment to
some extent is the intelligent animals (Bunnies & Burrows) type role
playing...

Obviously this sytem should be reserved for items which are likely to
play a major role in the game, otherwise the bookwork would be
ridiculous.

Of course what I've suggested here is somewhat tentative and sketchy
(but looong). I hope it generates some discussion....

Finally, at the very end I've thrown in my $0.02 about the current
dice system debate by suggesting yet another system.

FUDGE equipment
===============

A piece of equipment or object is described in a similar way to a
character, using traits. The standard character trait divisions can be
used, such as attributes, skills and gifts (although the last two will
probably be fairly uncommon), but the emphasis of the traits will
probably be different to that of a character. In addition items have
an additional class of traits called functions which are modifiers to
the skill of a character using the item.

Of course, as with characters, exactly what traits are going to be
most important would be up to the GM. As is the degree of detail.

Examples:

The GM wants a very simple equipment system, so she declares a single
trait called "functionality" which is basically "how good the item is
at doing what it's supposed to do". In this scheme, a sword might be
have a Good functionality (which means it is a good melee weapon), a
magic sword might be Great or Superb. A very high quality pen would
probably only have Fair functionality (the extra quality doesn't help
with things like editing) - for comparison, even a basic word
processor would have a Good functionality, a high-tech voice
recognition based system would be Superb, a hammer and chisel would be
Poor (or even Terrible).

In a more complicated system, the GM uses some universal attributes
like Damage Resistance (how much damage an object can sustain before
it becomes useless) and Craftsmanship (how well-made the item is),
plus specific attributes and functions (and perhaps skills and gifts)
based on the object's use. For instance, melee weapons would have a
Damage Potential attribute (how deadly a weapon is) and a  Melee
Weapon function (how useful it is in melee combat - how much it adds
to the chances of success). In a very complicated system there might
even be a Parry function (a modifier on the defensive roll, rather
than the attacking roll in combat). Ranged weapons might have a Range
attribute, and so forth...

In this system, a sword might look something like:
Attributes:
    Damage Resistance: Great (Superb?)
    Craftsmanship: Fair
    Damage Potential: Good
Functions:
    Melee Weapon: Good

Examples of skills and gifts would crop up most when considering
computers, or magical items. A computer would probably have a skill
like "Arithmetic" or "Basic Mathematics" and a gift of "Programmable."
An expert system might have more diverse skills such as "Medical".
Once you start getting to full-blown AI and robots, you are probably
better off describing them as characters. An intelligent magical sword
might have its own "Melee Combat" skill, and probably a range of
gifts, not the least of which would be "Intelligence" (probably a
supernormal ability). In addition it could also have some
mental/spiritual attributes which are not normally associated with
items.


An important point is made here: it is not the _quality_ of the item
which affects functions, but how _useful_ it is (see the pen/word
processor example above).

Another important point is, when defining an item, only worry about
its intended uses. A pen might be have a Fair functionality as a
writing implement, but this only refers to its use as a writing
implement. If it is used as a melee weapon, it would probably be
Terrible. It is up to the GM to determine how useful an object is in a
given situation for which it was not designed. A personal computer
would make a Great doorstop...

Also, a given function may cover several different skills, especially
if more generalised traits are used. Example: An electronic repair kit
with a function "Electronic Repair: Good" would probably help a
Electronic Repair skill, a Computer Repair skill and even a Robotic
Repair skill equally, since all three use essentially the same tools.
It would not be neccessary to list "Electronic Repair: Good, Computer
Repair: Good, Robotic Repair: Good".

Using Equipment

If an object has an independent trait, then using this is resolved
just as if the object were a character.

Example: A computer has a skill of Arithmetic: Great . Adding up a
list of 1000 one hundred digit numbers would have a degree of Fair
(just a guess?). Resolve normally.

Damage Resitance needs special note in that the penalties for Hurt and
Very Hurt remain unchanged, but would be better called Damaged and
Very Damaged (or Badly Damaged?). Incapacitated should be read as
"Unusable, but easily made to work." Near Death should be read as
"Unusable, and difficult to make work." Damage beyond this means the
object is irreparibly broken.

There are two ways I can think of to use objects as a benefit to using
a skill, the first is to treat it as a modifier to the skill _level_,
the other as a modifer to the task _roll_.

Obviously the quality of the tools should have a lesser effect than
the skill of the user. If the skill of the user does not really matter
then the function is probably better represented as a skill.

Adding to Skills Method

How about the following mechanism:
    Terrible: -2 levels
    Poor: -1 level
    Mediocre, Fair, Good: +0 levels
    Great: +1 level
    Superb: +2 levels
Resolve task with the adjusted system.

Example: Fred the Barbarian has a magical sword which has a "Melee
Weapon: Great" function and a Melee Combat skill of Fair. When using
the sword he has a Melee Combat skill of Good.

The probablities of the outcomes would be (as fractions of 36 and
percentages):
Terrible Poor  Mediocre  Fair  Good  etc...
--------------------------------------------
    1      2       3       4    16    ...
  2.8%   5.6%    8.3%    11.1% 44.4%  ...
the table is symmetric.

(Note: I got this system from the way strength levels are handled in
the damage system...)

Adding to the Roll Method

Use the progression:
    Terrible: -3
    Poor: -2
    Mediocre: - 1
    Fair: +0
    Good: +1
    Great: +2
    Superb: +3
as the addition to the roll.

Example: In the above example Fred would have a "+2" one Melee Combat
rolls when using his Magical Sword, but his skill would still be
Fair.

However the probabilities would change to:
Poor  Mediocre  Fair  Good  Great  Superb Superb+1  
  1       2       3     4     16      4      6
2.8%    5.6%    8.3%  11.1% 44.4%   11.1%  16.7%
This obviuosly gives a higher average level of success then the
previous method. However it would work better in the 2d10 or the 4d6
(see below) system, since then +2 on a roll = +1 level (approx).


What Happens If a Character Doesn't Have Any Tools?

If this happens, it is up to the GM to decide if lack of equipment is
a problem. In essence what she has to do is to decide what funtion
level equals no tools: writing with no equipment would be Terrible;
climbing a cliff might be fair (or perhaps mediocre) - equipment is
useful, but not essential; attempting to repair a crashed vehicle
might be impossible without tools.

Note that his means that in some cases bad tools might be worse than
no tools at all (eg. using damaged or weak tools in climibing a
cliff).

Creating Objects

At the moment there is only a subjective system for doing this.
However, it might be a good idea if there were a point system to
determine a sort of cost for items. A character could have a certain
number of points to spend during creation (gifts and faults such as
"materially poor" and "wealthy" could affect this). In additon this
might be a way to determine a monetary cost (eg. 1 point = $10 or 1
credit or 100 silver pieces or whatever - the details of the GM's
monetary system are entirely her own problem!)

Also it would be nice if there were a rough system for saying how
difficult it is for a character to build a given item...

Yet another dice system...
==========================

Yes I know... 8-)

However, I'm posting this because I believe that it combines the
advantages of the 2d10 system (wider range) with the advantages of the
2d6 system (easier to get the dice). In addition the following system
will give probabilities which are distributed on a smoother bell
curve. The one drawback is that it requires 4 dice, not 2.

It simply is to roll 4D6 and then look up the following table...

=<4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 =>24
 -5  -4  -3  -2   -1     0    +1    +2    +3    +4    +5

or alternatively use the formula ((4D6)-14)/2 and round down. (note
that 14 is the average value, so (4D6)-14 gives a range from -10 to
10)

Another alternative would be ((4D6)-14)/3 and round to nearest, which
would give the following table:

 <4 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 >24
 -4  -3  -2   -1    0    +1    +2    +3    +4

In both cases, I would suggest using equipment as a modifier to the
roll, and the reult is a modifier to the skill level, but other
processes could work.

In short I'm stating my opinions and seeing what everyone else here
thinks.

See ya 'round,
    Corran Webster
        cwebster@math.ucla.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.design