 |
Fudge Forum
An unofficial resource for the Fudge RPG
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject: No Skills, No Attributes, Just Traits |
 |
|
Ok, so, if you read the Fudge "rules" carefully, this isn't really a new concept, but I think I added a slightly new spin to it. I was heavily influenced by Over The Edge with this one.
1. Don't call 'em Attributes - don't even think of them as Attributes. They only are bought and sold like Attributes during character creation or character advancement. They're simply Traits, or, more exactly, "Broad" Traits. These Traits can be occupations, character qualities, non-human races, bundles of related skills in a single category, etc.
2. Players can have whatever Traits they want, though a GM can always, of course, veto any Traits that a player comes up with. Traits all begin at Fair, though technical and/or unusual Traits would begin at "non-existent". (Certain GMs may allow for a grainier system, where unusual or uncommon Traits might start at Terrible, Poor, or Mediocre instead of just non-existent.)
3. If a Trait is "narrow" enough for the GM to allow it, some Traits can be bought and traded in at the rate of Skills. Remember, these aren't skills, just like Broad Traits are not Attributes. They're Narrow Traits.
Ok. So why are they not Attributes and Skills? Well, by not thinking of them in terms of "Attributes" and "Skills", but as mere Traits, the player (and the GM) can free up their minds a bit, get a little more kooky, and have an easier time freely describing their character.
When some people think of Attributes, they think of things like "Strength," "Willpower", "Charisma", "Agility", etc., but don't usually think of things such as "Good (+1) Live Action Star Wars Gamer" (which might include fencing, acting, star wars lore, collections of star wars memorabilia, etc.) or "Superb (+3) Slob" (which includes an ability to ignore the 5 second rule for dropping spaghetti on the floor, a resistance to disease, a body odor that repels most sane creatures, and pet roaches.)
Narrow Traits should only be those Traits that seem more for "Flavor" than actually useful, within game. Now, of course a wise GM will find a use for such a Trait in game, but the frequency of such a Trait being useful should be rare at best. A player of mine actually took the Trait "Great (+2) Emcee" because it fleshed out his character. I didn't want to punish him for sacrificing Trait Levels to make his character come to life, even though this game involved time travel, hunting mutants in the sewers, and finding out that your friendly next-door neighbor is actually a cannibalistic demon-worshipper who's been spying on you through your medicine cabinet for years now, so I let him raise his Emcee Trait, from non-existent, at a third of the cost of a "Broad" Trait.
Maybe he'll hold one of the hottest hip-hop concerts for a horde of C.H.U.D. in years! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:40 am Post subject: Addendum |
|
|
Yeah, I know it's poor form to reply to one's own post, but I just threw that one together and a couple notes might be in order.
1. This is not a system that gives primacy to accuracy and crunchiness in a game. It probably works best for GMs and players that prefers to keep thing loose and don't like to "waste time" with math and rummaging through lists of skills and attributes.
There are times when I even prefer a more crunchy game with lots of detail, but this system seems to work well for stories that are a little more surreal than others.
2. A table of sorts might help one get at what this is all about at a glance. I know nothing about html, so I can't do this table for you.  However, I can show you what would come up from a matrix of this sort.
There are 4 kinds of Traits. Each Trait is either Broad or Narrow (column A), and either Exoteric or Esoteric (column B). Combining an item from column A with column B, we get these four types of Traits:
Broad and Exoteric Traits: These types of Traits default to Fair (+0) and their Levels costs the same as Attribute Levels in the Fudge book. (2 of these Trait Levels can be traded in for a Gift, for example.) Possible Broad/Common Traits include Warrior, Outdoorswoman, Train-Hoppin' Hobo, Swashbuckler, etc.
Broad and Esoteric Traits: These types of Traits default to Non-Existent (sub Terrible, and unusable unless you actually have the Trait, in which case it would begin at Terrible) and cost the same as Attribute Levels. Possible Broad/Rare Traits include Sorcerer, Esoteric Martial Artist From An Exotic Foreign Land, Jedi Knight, Scientist (Mad or otherwise), etc.
Narrow and Exoteric Traits: These Traits default to Fair (+0) and are worth as much as Skills in a normal Fudge game. Examples include Plumber, Swordswoman, Fisherman, Horse-Rider, Cat Trainer, Pugilist, Boxman (a safe-cracker), Pickpocket, Coin Collector.
Narrow and Esoteric Traits: These Traits default to Non-Existent (below Terrible and unusable by most characters) and cost as much as Skills in the Fudge book to raise, trade in, etc. Examples of Narrow/Esoteric Traits are Drunken Kung-Fu Stylist, Hypnotist, Inventor, Alchemist, Tea-Reader, Speaks Latin, Perfume Designer, etc.
Rules of Thumb: If a Trait can be broken down into more narrow Traits, it's a Broad Trait. If you can't break a Trait down any further, it's probably a Narrow Trait. If a trait is common enough that most people have seen the Trait enough that they could probably do a Fair job at it themselves, or they have picked up a little bit of that trait, even if only through osmosis, it is probably an Exoteric Trait. If it's not an Exoteric Trait, it's probably an Esoteric Trait. Or, if you prefer, most Esoteric Traits are "gee-whiz" type Traits that the majority of the population are unlikely to comprehend without specialised training.
As always, Gifts are those Traits that can not be measured in Levels. They are the Traits that you either have completely, or you don't have at all. The same can be said for Faults.
3. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knaight
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 439
Location: Ft. Collins CO, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like it, it looks like it would work well for a quick, non crunchy game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Knaight wrote: | | I like it, it looks like it would work well for a quick, non crunchy game. |
Yeah, it honestly does (in my experience)! But, I can't really take credit for it. I adapted it from Over the Edge, with a teeny bit of bending and twisting. I love Over the Edge, but whenever I try to adapt it to a setting other than the "official" Over the Edge setting, I feel like I'm treading on sacred ground. Uh, yeah - I'm completely neurotic at times.
Luckily, I love Fudge, too, and I just had to change the language a bit to convert one to the other.
If you haven't tried Over the Edge, you should some time, too. It is also very quick, and very non-crunchy. It's a William S. Burrough's-ish, Kafka-esque, Lovecraftean surrealist horror mystery noir game.
Here's another interesting "mechanic" built into the character creation process that can be used in just about any game:
To any Trait a character lists (and thus is above or below average) a "Sign" must be attached. A sign, in this case, is something that is indicative of the Trait that the player can use to describe her character without resorting to metagame language. With it, a player can almost "show" the character rather than "tell about" the character. They are "always" put in (parentheses) after the Trait itself is described and/or listed.
Examples:
Pick-pocket: picking-pockets, lifting objects out of purses without being noticed, slight of hand tricks. (Has exceptionally dextrous looking fingers)
Good Skulker: sneaking about in shadows, moving silently, shadowing people, hiding behind objects. (Always wearing a dark hooded cloak.)
Fault - Paranoid: always afraid that someone is watching or following her due to years of committing theft. (Checks over her shoulder every now and then.)
Brave: difficult to intimidate, willing to go where few would dare, exceptionally confident. (battle-cry: "Death Before Dishonor!")
Such a player could then describe her character, instead of "is a pick-pocket and sneaky rogue who is a little paranoid", as "Sarah is wearing a dark, hooded cloak which she pulls back with slender, dextrous-looking fingers to take a quick look over her shoulder". The latter is much more visual and "realistic" than the former, I think.
- P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloomfield
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks cool! I skimmed it, and it was very interesting, but I'll probably just stick to my Over The Edge-inspired "system" since my group and I are all already familiar with Over the Edge and Fudge, and they'll probably lynch me if I try to convince them to learn another system. (I experiment enough as it is!)
Thank you, however! I might even snag a few ideas from those sources. Always keep an open mind- always experiment, right?
Do what thou wilt!
- Phillillillip |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.Tim
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: No Skills, No Attributes, Just Traits |
|
|
| pippenstein wrote: |
[snip] They're simply Traits, or, more exactly, "Broad" Traits. These Traits can be occupations, character qualities, non-human races, bundles of related skills in a single category, etc.
|
Oh yes. See "Over the Fudge" once the Fudge Guide is brought back online (should be by the end of this month I think):
http://www.fudgerpg.info/guide/bin/view/Guide/OverTheFudge
Over the Fudge
And traits as broad attributes/skills/powers/descriptors is an idea in Risus ported easily to Fudge:
http://www.fudgeforum.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=181&highlight=fduge+risus
Fudge Risus
Story Engine (Precise Intermedia) has very similar concepts, only instead of individual combats being resovled, entire scenes are resolved, which makes it close to narrative combat in Fudge.
In both OtE and Risus, the Traits are *all* handled as Damage Capacity. Equipmet is handled as "mere props" -- in other words, no +1 swords or +1 guns. The only problem is that when I've used Fudge that way, 62% of the time I roll my Trait level, which ends up in a lot of ties unless you use melee factors and ranged factors (usually difficulty and/or skill reduction) and/or the offensive/defensive factors for simultaneous combat.
The opponent's Trait (Damage Capacity) is reduced a certain amount of levels by the winner. So if you won the combat by 1 level, the opponent's Trait is reduced by one, just as in Fudge.
This has allowed me to play quick pick-up games with Risus ("Hurrah for the Last One to Die (aerial combat WW I) and Risus Battletech are my two favorites -- and Battletech you can use Scale woo hoo). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: No Skills, No Attributes, Just Traits |
|
|
| J.Tim wrote: | Oh yes. See "Over the Fudge" once the Fudge Guide is brought back online (should be by the end of this month I think):
And traits as broad attributes/skills/powers/descriptors is an idea in Risus ported easily to Fudge [...]
In both OtE and Risus, the Traits are *all* handled as Damage Capacity. Equipmet is handled as "mere props" -- in other words, no +1 swords or +1 guns. The only problem is that when I've used Fudge that way, 62% of the time I roll my Trait level, which ends up in a lot of ties unless you use melee factors and ranged factors (usually difficulty and/or skill reduction) and/or the offensive/defensive factors for simultaneous combat.
The opponent's Trait (Damage Capacity) is reduced a certain amount of levels by the winner. So if you won the combat by 1 level, the opponent's Trait is reduced by one, just as in Fudge.
This has allowed me to play quick pick-up games with Risus ("Hurrah for the Last One to Die (aerial combat WW I) and Risus Battletech are my two favorites -- and Battletech you can use Scale woo hoo). |
I believe I looked through the Story Engine system at one point, and wasn't blown away...
But I loved Risus, and to tell you the truth, at one point I dabbled with Over the Fudge.
The problem I have with "Over the Fudge" is that it was a little too similar to Over the Edge, and size scale was always an issue in Over the Edge and Over the Fudge. (Though, less so in Over the Edge, because the setting in which that game takes place makes it unlikely that the characters would be dealing with giants or dragons, or Cthulhu.)
BUT, have you ever checked out the PDQ (Prose Descriptive Qualities) system? It wasn't what I would call a perfect system, but it was really good and sat between Fudge and Over The Edge. It was like Over the Fudge but the way it "should have been". However, there were still some aesthetical "problems" that led me to do a different kind of Over the Fudge.
The main issue with Over the Fudge is that it uses the "three trait creation" system from Over the Edge. That's a bit limiting for me. In PDQ that problem is solved, but it goes on a x2 ranking system, and doesn't dip below a [-4] (similar to Over the Edge). In both Over the Edge and PDQ, the levels are like this:
non-existent
[2d6-4] (no OtE equivalent) = Terrible
[2d6-2] or 1 Die = Poor
[2d6+0] or 2 Dice = Fair
[2d6+2] or 3 Dice = Good
[2d6+4] or 4 Dice = Great
[2d6+6] or 5 Dice = Superb (normal human limit)
[3d6+6] or 6 Dice = Legendary
I found the switching to more dice from a bonus in PDQ a bit counter-intuitive, and I didn't like that there were only one or two levels below Fair in PDQ and OtE.
I eventually just settled back to Fudge altogether, and took what I learned from playing those games - what I liked - and kept them, and threw out what I didn't.
As for damage capacity, in Over The Edge, the Trait isn't reduced - they've got a hit point system that is specifically based on some sort of "damage capacity" Trait, but, for example, a beginning player-character has an average of 14 hit points.)
However, in PDQ the Trait is reduced, a system I kind of like - to a degree. Any Trait, however, can be reduced - and it is always the decision of the player who's character is being hit which trait is lowered. This in interesting. If a player wants to keep on fighting, he'd be wise not to lower his character's Strength or Swashbuckling Traits, but instead, maybe he says, "I take it on the cheek, and my face swells up something nasty..." and he decides to drop his "Handsome" Trait. (By the way, one can only drop a Trait that the character has that is above average, which can include Magical Traits, for example, if they are at a lower level than "average" but usually default to non-existent.)
One could easily use that in Fudge, of course. The only problem is that Fudge already has a system like that, sort of, in place. Each damage level a player character goes down into, they suffer a -1 to checks. I suppose, a player can decide what checks these would fall under when the character is reduced to that level... The GM could limit the choices to physical, social, mental (or something like that), and the player then could survive a bit longer than usual by distributing the damage out between all three (or however many a GM decides). But that might get a bit too crunchy for my taste. Perhaps a GM could allow a player to "ignore" a damage level if they take a temporary Fault??? One could even come up with a "Temporary Fault" Table that the player rolls on when this happens. Limp, Swollen Face, Headaches, Can't Hold On To Things With His Left Hand, etc. They would heal like a wound level, probably being the last thing to heal.
I'm just rambling here. I meant to say, yeah, I've checked out those games, though I haven't seen Risus Fudge (or Fudge Risus for that matter). I will check that out, though. I'm always eager to see what other people are doing in the gaming world!
- P Diddy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cuparius
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
| pippenstein wrote: |
Broad and Exoteric Traits: These types of Traits default to Fair (+0) and their Levels costs the same as Attribute Levels in the Fudge book. (2 of these Trait Levels can be traded in for a Gift, for example.) Possible Broad/Common Traits include Warrior, Outdoorswoman, Train-Hoppin' Hobo, Swashbuckler, etc.
Broad and Esoteric Traits: These types of Traits default to Non-Existent (sub Terrible, and unusable unless you actually have the Trait, in which case it would begin at Terrible) and cost the same as Attribute Levels. Possible Broad/Rare Traits include Sorcerer, Esoteric Martial Artist From An Exotic Foreign Land, Jedi Knight, Scientist (Mad or otherwise), etc.
Narrow and Exoteric Traits: These Traits default to Fair (+0) and are worth as much as Skills in a normal Fudge game. Examples include Plumber, Swordswoman, Fisherman, Horse-Rider, Cat Trainer, Pugilist, Boxman (a safe-cracker), Pickpocket, Coin Collector.
Narrow and Esoteric Traits: These Traits default to Non-Existent (below Terrible and unusable by most characters) and cost as much as Skills in the Fudge book to raise, trade in, etc. Examples of Narrow/Esoteric Traits are Drunken Kung-Fu Stylist, Hypnotist, Inventor, Alchemist, Tea-Reader, Speaks Latin, Perfume Designer, etc.
|
"Default to Fair" means everyone automatically has those traits at Fair, which means purchased levels would start at Good. Do you actually mean the starting levels are Fair and the default levels are Mediocre or lower? (I was thinking along those lines with one of my projects, Plain Trait Fudge, where all traits default to Mediocre or Nonexistent, depending on rarity.)
_________________
Gordon A. Cooper
http://www.fudgery.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
| Cuparius wrote: | | pippenstein wrote: |
Broad and Exoteric Traits: These types of Traits default to Fair (+0) and their Levels costs the same as Attribute Levels in the Fudge book. (2 of these Trait Levels can be traded in for a Gift, for example.) Possible Broad/Common Traits include Warrior, Outdoorswoman, Train-Hoppin' Hobo, Swashbuckler, etc.
Broad and Esoteric Traits: These types of Traits default to Non-Existent (sub Terrible, and unusable unless you actually have the Trait, in which case it would begin at Terrible) and cost the same as Attribute Levels. Possible Broad/Rare Traits include Sorcerer, Esoteric Martial Artist From An Exotic Foreign Land, Jedi Knight, Scientist (Mad or otherwise), etc.
Narrow and Exoteric Traits: These Traits default to Fair (+0) and are worth as much as Skills in a normal Fudge game. Examples include Plumber, Swordswoman, Fisherman, Horse-Rider, Cat Trainer, Pugilist, Boxman (a safe-cracker), Pickpocket, Coin Collector.
Narrow and Esoteric Traits: These Traits default to Non-Existent (below Terrible and unusable by most characters) and cost as much as Skills in the Fudge book to raise, trade in, etc. Examples of Narrow/Esoteric Traits are Drunken Kung-Fu Stylist, Hypnotist, Inventor, Alchemist, Tea-Reader, Speaks Latin, Perfume Designer, etc.
|
"Default to Fair" means everyone automatically has those traits at Fair, which means purchased levels would start at Good. Do you actually mean the starting levels are Fair and the default levels are Mediocre or lower? (I was thinking along those lines with one of my projects, Plain Trait Fudge, where all traits default to Mediocre or Nonexistent, depending on rarity.) |
I actually do mean everyone's Trait's generally start at Fair, if they don't default to non-existent, and if they spend points on them it puts them at Good or higher.
Now these are for Traits that are common to everyone, like, in "our world", "Sucking Up To The Boss" would default to Fair, but I would hope that I personally would qualify to have mine lowered in exchange for raising a level or two in "Rabble-Rousing Radical".
Less common Traits tend to default to non-existent for a super-lite, non-crunchy system, but there is nothing at all wrong with having them default to Mediocre, Poor, or Terrible, depending on rarity or complexity of the subject. It's likely that most Traits would default to Poor in a game like this, instead of Fair, since "Poor" is between Non-Existent and Fair, so this makes a sensible, and convenient, starting point.
Actually, I run most of my games like that anyway, keeping Traits that default to non-existent limited to extremely esoteric or technical Traits, or Traits just plain ultra-rare in a region.
Traits that I would default to, say, Poor, would be like "Hip Hop Emcee", or "Bare Knuckle Fighter", or "Customer Service Clerk". Traits I'd default to Fair would be Traits such as "Pop-Culture Expert", "Cook", "Car Driver", etc. Traits that would default to Non-existent would be "Magickian" (what real-world sorcerers prefer to call themselves nowadays), "Physicist", "Tai Chi Chuan Artist", or "Acupuncturist".
Sorry about the confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cuparius
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
| pippenstein wrote: |
Sorry about the confusion. |
No problem. I think maybe I was too sleepy when I first read it. At any rate, I was inspired to dredge up my article on Plain Trait Fudge (http://www.fudgery.net/xfudge/plain_traits.html). I wrote it in 2007 when I was working on something similar for Sherpa (http://www.fudgery.net/omnium-gatherum/sherpa_descriptive.html), but I hadn't liked the examples I had included, so I rewrote that part and posted it today.
In general, I like the way Fudge handles attributes and skills, but sometimes I prefer a simpler method.
_________________
Gordon A. Cooper
http://www.fudgery.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
| Cuparius wrote: | | pippenstein wrote: |
Sorry about the confusion. |
No problem. I think maybe I was too sleepy when I first read it. At any rate, I was inspired to dredge up my article on Plain Trait Fudge (http://www.fudgery.net/xfudge/plain_traits.html). I wrote it in 2007 when I was working on something similar for Sherpa (http://www.fudgery.net/omnium-gatherum/sherpa_descriptive.html), but I hadn't liked the examples I had included, so I rewrote that part and posted it today.
In general, I like the way Fudge handles attributes and skills, but sometimes I prefer a simpler method. |
I agree! There are games where a more general description ("just traits") is better than a specific description (attributes/skills), and vice versa.
However, in the end, Attributes and Skills are really "just traits", too, in a manner - only they are pre-set, and the players pick from a list, rather than make them up. (But this is what I mean when I say that sometimes skills/attributes are better than just traits, and vice versa).
Basically, the difference between the "just traits" and the standard skills/attributes system is how much control the GM wants to give the players over making their characters - the former allows more freedom than the latter.
I can make a character like thus:
Attributes:
Mind: Fair
Body: Great
Spirit: Good
Skills:
Karate: Great
Pistol: Fair
Katana: Good
Negotiation: Great
Etiquette: Great
or I can make a character like this:
Businessman: Great
Street Samurai: Good
Karate Artist*: Great
Handgun Specialist*: Fair
(* raises at the rate of a skill. All others raise at Attribute Speed.)
...........
Same character, although I would argue that the second "version" of the same character is far more descriptive, and summons up the image of the character much more quickly than the first. Plus, the added bonus is that the players don't have to go through a list of skills, and the GM doesn't have to explain the subtle differences between two different but similar attributes, such as the difference between "Intelligence" and "Wisdom", or between skills and Attributes, like "Athletics" and "Body".
Although, there are times when the GM wants to be very specific about what the characters will turn out like, such as in an all-Sorcerer game. Perhaps this is the time when the Attributes/Skills system shines.
I'm gonna check out your links, by the by!
Do what thou wilt!
- P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.Tim
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:56 am Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
| pippenstein wrote: |
Although, there are times when the GM wants to be very specific about what the characters will turn out like, such as in an all-Sorcerer game. Perhaps this is the time when the Attributes/Skills system shines.
|
Ah, I think I see what you mean now. So would you handle damage as per Fudge:
http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/frp/fudge/fudge4.html#sec4.57
either with a Damage Capacity or a Wound Track (or both in some games [or neither in others])?
I mean, would you use the idea of each trait acting as a kind of Damage Capacity that can be reduced (as in PDQ and Risus -- the first one generating a story hook)?
Would you have weapons giving a bonus (+2 swords or guns)? Or in a low-combat game, some other factor to reduce a trait in an opposed or unopposed action (you could give someone a "sharp wit" a +1 bonus... hmmm)? Because I think if you don't, then two equal-trait opponents will tie a great deal (unless you have a "fatigue" aspect where they go a certain number of rounds before becoming tired)?
The reason I'm not asking about non-violent action resolution is that I'm pretty sure I could say "you have a difficulty level of X to climb that cliff" and roll if needed. A different difficulty for the Business man than the Samauri but if he were both... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pippenstein
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
| J.Tim wrote: |
http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/frp/fudge/fudge4.html#sec4.57
1. So would you handle damage as per Fudge either with a Damage Capacity or a Wound Track (or both in some games [or neither in others])?
I mean, would you use the idea of each trait acting as a kind of Damage Capacity that can be reduced (as in PDQ and Risus -- the first one generating a story hook)?
2. Would you have weapons giving a bonus (+2 swords or guns)? Or in a low-combat game, some other factor to reduce a trait in an opposed or unopposed action (you could give someone a "sharp wit" a +1 bonus... hmmm)? Because I think if you don't, then two equal-trait opponents will tie a great deal (unless you have a "fatigue" aspect where they go a certain number of rounds before becoming tired)?
The reason I'm not asking about non-violent action resolution is that I'm pretty sure I could say "you have a difficulty level of X to climb that cliff" and roll if needed. A different difficulty for the Business man than the Samauri but if he were both... |
1. Use the damage system in Fudge as it is, or us the PDQ-type Damage Capacity system, or use a combination system, where a Trait is rolled to see how much damage the character "soaks" (similar to the White Wolf Storyteller system).
Basically, there would be no change to the way you like to handle damage if you decide to use the "Just Traits" system. I'll give examples of all 3 above, and how they would be used in conjunction with the "Just Traits" system.
a. If you decide to just use the standard fudge damage system, then do the following: roll initiative (or not, if you don't want to use initiative) using a Trait that the player says relates to reaction speed, quickness, etc. (The GM of course always can veto if he thinks the player is stretching his Traits too far, such as if a player says he will use his "Trip-Hop DJ" Trait for initiative, because "he's learned timing and he's really good at improvising, so he doesn't have to think - he just acts". Of course, a GM can always allow any explaination he wants - if he thinks that allowing the player to use a trait after explaining why enhances the mood and fun of the game. I probably would allow the player to use his DJ Trait in such a way in a "surreal" modern horror game, honestly!)
After initiative is decided, the attacker rolls with a combat related Trait (what "combat related" means remains forever relative to the GM running the game. Allow players to be creative when using Traits, but don't let them walk all over you!) Then the defender rolls with a defense related Trait (it is recommended that if a character takes a Trait that includes both offensive and defensive uses, that the Trait naturally be a "Broad Trait" - that is, it would raise as an Attribute as per Fudge rules - to maintain game balance!). Then, compare results. If the attacker beats the defender's roll, by 1-2 levels, it's a scratch. 3-4, it's a "hurt" level. Etc. No difference from standard Fudge rules here.
b. In a PDQ-type game, instead of wound levels, the player who's character is being wounded may choose a Trait, or more (depending on how many wound levels she's being hit with), to lower to "soak" - temporarily - damage with. The player must be able to justify this in a reasonable manner - ask her how it makes sense for her to lower her, for example, Superb Tap Dancer Trait, for getting hit with a club. She might (easily) say that because she took the blow in her head, it put off her sense of balance... Only Traits that are listed on the Character Record Sheet may be reduced in this manner - no Traits that are at their default level may be reduced. The GM must determine what is the "breaking point" of a character. The breaking point is the Level at which if any Trait is dropped to, the character is "knocked out" (or killed?). Normally, this is below Terrible, but it can be higher for less heroic games. Or, the GM can just decide how many Level "drops" in this manner can occur for a character before the character goes limp.
Remember that if a character is dealt 5 damage, she must drop 5 Trait Levels! These Traits come back at normal healing rate (as per your campaign). Traits are always healed back in opposite order to the way they were dropped!!!! Players tend to drop their most precious Traits last, so these, being so valuable, should be hardest to return to normal. So the GM should keep track of how the players drop their traits.
c. In a "Storyteller" type system, when a character is about to suffer damage from a poorly defended attack, the player may choose a Trait to roll against a difficulty Level set by the amount of Damage being done. For example, 1-2 damage would be Poor, 3-4 Mediocre, 5-6 Fair, 7-8 Good, 9-10 Great, 11-12 Superb, 13-14 Legendary, 15-16 Legendary +1, etc. If the player fails the roll, he drops his character a number of Trait levels equal to the difference of this roll and the Difficulty Level, or checks off the Wound Level as per the normal Fudge rules. (1-2 scratch, 3-4 hurt, etc.)
2. What you are talking about is what is called, in roleplaying game jargon, "graininess". Here's a definition of graininess from RPG Lexica:
Role-playing games almost universally use number scales to define characters. D&D, for example, uses the now classic 3-18 scale to rate six basic attributes, such that a character with a Strength of 14 is mightier than one with a rating of 8. From a design perspective, it can be advantageous to instead use a limited scale, such as 1-6, to help keep numbers manageable. The drawback is that with a lesser range, the steps become more significant, and it can become difficult to model characters who are only slightly better or worse than each other. Designers refer to this problem as Graininess, in reference to old poor quality photographs in which large grains of pigmentation were individually visible, and thus blurred the detail of the larger image.
In some contexts, graininess refers to the number of differentiated skills or abilities that characters may take. For example, a game with only one physical statistic (such as Body) is grainier than a game with three physical statistics (such as Strength, Agility, and Toughness). The grainier method is faster, but makes it difficult to distinguish between characters who are tough but slow and those who are weaker, but lithe and quick, and usually requires some external method for making such distinctions. By contrast, excessively "smooth" systems may require characters to be defined in terms of an unwieldy number of areas, which makes character generation slow, and produces unclear distinctions between abilities (such as Exalted, which includes both Perception and Awareness, and both Charisma and Manipulation).
However, it would be a mistake to think that Just Traits Fudge is any more prone to the graininess "problem" (if you consider it, personally, to be a problem) than basic Fudge. Fudge has always been criticised for it's graininess; check the section titled "Problems With Fudge" in this review from RPG.net: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3576.html
Personally, I don't think ties are bad. In fact, they can be beneficial for drama! Think about the epic battles in films - they are never anything but very, very close, and sometimes very long and drawn out. Luke vs. Vader, Inigo Montoya vs. Westley, Rocky Balboa vs. Apollo Creed... They are often battles of attrition, and in Fudge this means that a scratch here, a scratch there, and eventually one character isn't feeling very well...
If you do think ties are bad, and still want to try out/use Just Traits Fudge, then just use any rule you want! Example: if a tie occurs, give the character that was most creative with their trait in the round just ending a bonus on their next attack. A +1 would suffice. Or, penalize lazy, disinterested players by giving the "bad guys" (assuming the PCs are the 'good guys') a situational bonus. Make it up! But make sure it makes sense, too... Remember, it's your game!
Do what thou wilt!
- P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.Tim
Fudge Forum Member
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: Re: Addendum |
|
|
Thank you for the example and explantion! This looks very interesting and wasn't what I first imagined it to be.
I'm going to try a pick-up game and try some of your suggestions, and perhaps the "Fancy Stuff" http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/frp/fudge/fudge4.html#sec4.36
I've never had a problem with the mechanics of Fudge being grainy; I just saw the characters being able to do more stuff in an action round ("I want to jump over AND draw my sword") but I think I understand what you're saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
