[freeroleplay] Re: [Fwd: Free-Content Licensing of FUDGE]
- From: Jamie Jensen <yarvin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:03:31 -0600
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:01:42 -0000 (GMT), Samuel Penn
<sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm playing in the beginning of a World of Darkness (using the
> > new rules) campaign right now.
>
> We played a bit of this earlier on in the year. We found that the
> "A '1' cancels a success" to lead to very random results, so we
> dumped that rule.
>
The new rules also do away with that.
In the new rules, they've done away with variable difficulties by
fixing the target number at 8. 10's still get rerolled (and sometimes
9's and even 8's are rerolled), but 1's don't cancel. Difficulty is
adjusted by adding or subtracting dice from the player's dice pool.
If a player's dice pool is reduced to zero or less, the player gets a
"chance" roll -- 1d10 with only 10's counting as successes, and if
they roll a "1", they have a "Dramatic Failure".
The new combat system is really cool. Instead of the old four-roll
(attack, defense, damage, soak) combat system, it's down to one roll.
The attacker's dice pool is equal to their attribute + ability + the
damage rating of their weapon - opponen'ts defense. The attacker
rolls, and however many successes they get is how much damage they do
to their opponent (no soak, but your Health is no longer fixed; it's
Stamina + Size (which is 5 for humans)).
Yes, this means that weapons with higher damage ratings also hit
easier; weapons like shotguns, that are highly damaging but not very
accurate, are given lower damage ratings but allow rerolling of 9's on
the attack.
All in all, I'd say it's the near-perfect Narrativist system.
> I'm not too fond of the success system. I don't like the fact that
> it looses information - if you're aiming for difficulty 6, and
> rolling 4 dice, then a roll of 6,6,6,6 is exactly the same as
> 9,9,9,9. Also a 5,5,5,5 is worse than a 6,2,2,2, which feels
> very wrong to me.
>
It's just a matter of perspective, I guess.
> Our main problem though was that we had a simulationist GM
> running a game for a group of narrativists. The latter really
> hated his style of GMing, and a lot of friction was caused
> because of it.
>
> From a psychology point of view, it was quite interesting to
> watch, though it would have been better if people could have
> met in the middle.
Sorry about that.
Personally, I tend to be both Gamist and Narrativist, with sympathy
for Simulationist (I used to worry over realism, so I understand).
--
J. Jensen
Other related posts:
