From: ee52fak@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Main Strengths of FUDGE (was: Re: net.rpg: combat)
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:23:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

[urk...don't reply via-email to this account...it's just a dumb ECE
account.  Blah.]
In article <SKINNER.92Dec11082601@fuzzy.stdavids.picker.com> skinner@fuzzy.stdavids.picker.com (Andy Skinner) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.220522.7301@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>   s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>   >No offense, but what do you see as the main strengths of FUDGE?
>   >Addmitedly I didn't read the FUDGE posting in depth, but I didn't see
>   >anything much that was new and/or better than any other RPG currently
>   >available.
>
>   It has two main strengths:
>
>   1) It's free.  

	And a lot of people can get it because of that.  You can
print out tons of copies for friends, edit the rules and hand them
out at game sessions.  It can be used for a variety of styles and
genres quite easily.  (Personal note:  I don't like it much, but
that's me.  It's a bit too freeform...)

>   2) It's further along than the other net.rpg.

	Uh, as in it can be played, it works, you can make
characters, you can cast spells...
	The "other" net.rpg so far as I'm concerned has either died
or has splintered into people's personal pet RPG discussions via
e-mail.  And so it goes...  (the way it was going, it sounded like
Chartmaster gone to hell...)

>I think this is a worthwhile question, and have asked myself this before.
>What about this is better than whatever I had before?  I think that the
>benefit of FUDGE is in giving you a simple system for what you _do_ need
>objective rules for (I'd hate to not use dice at all and decide exactly how
>every combat should go, for example) and just leaving out the other stuff.

	Main problem is that it's "unrealistic" and provides very
little in the way of mechanics for dealing with a lot of things
which some people like spelled out.  "Jumping distance in yards = ST
+ DX - IQ" (grin)
	To some degree I do like things spelled out for me.  I like
to be able to whip out the game board once in a while, draw up the
Spaceship map and have the players get in a good ugly laser fight
with the pirates...

>With GURPS I get the impression that if I tried to run a game (I've only
>run short adventures with my wife (hmm, that sounds interesting ;-)), I
>would panic trying to remember the details.  There aren't many details for

	Then drop all the complicating stuff.  Nuke the advanced
combat, etc.  (Or do what I did and write up a Combat Outline.
mine's not done and leaves out certain things like fire damage and
the like, but it's more complete than nothing at all...)
	Whatever.  We all like varying degrees of complexity and
detail.

>FUDGE.  The longest part of the rules should be supplements listing animal/
>monster/NPC descriptions.  I'm definitely tempted to use rules if they
>are there.  If they aren't, I can fudge it.

	(Heh)  Yes.  This is probably the NICEST thing with very
simple systems...when they start getting very complex and precise,
it's more difficult to play with things and still end up with
something that works right...

>I hope that everything that I think needs to be objective (I'm still looking
>forward to seeing any adjustments to damage for different scales) has a
>reasonable implementation in such a simple system.
>
>andy
>skinner@stdavids.picker.com

	I'd definitely like to see some sort of rules in Fudge for
varying sizes.  (Hmn.  Actually....add a Size Modifier which moves a
creature up/down the scale so far as humans are concerned.  A rabbit
could never lift a 50 lb. weight, so it naturally will run off of
its scale -- it's impossible.  Things which a rabbit might find
difficult will be naturally scaled down for a human.  Urk, this too
complex?)
	Okay, let's get outta the damn parenthesis.  Here's an
example (using NON-Fudge words because I don't remember the actual
ones):

	Say we have a rabbit with a "3" statistic (on a scale from 1
to 7 as I recall Fudge being).  Now this is a bunny-specific stat
and not a human-specific stat.  Let's call the stat Strength for
simplicity (and for examples!).
	Now we give the rabbit a size modifier of, say, -3.  This
can be used to translate rabbit terms to human terms.  Human
"normal" is 4, so 4-3=1 which is the equivalent rabbit "stat".  So
if the rabbit wants to try human things, it now has a translation
table to deal with it all.  (So, say the 3 was the rabbit's hit
points in rabbit terms.  But in human terms it's only a 1 -- a
single hit could kill our poor bunny.  Too coarse?  Too complex?
Dunno...)
	...etc...blah blah

Bryce Koike
bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.design