Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RFC: need help with explaining an idea

Expand Messages
  • Eoin Keith Boyle
    [Basically, does this make sense as written?] We have 2 semi-opposed stats (let s call them Fighting and Magic) that we describe using std. 7 trait scale - but
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1, 2010
      [Basically, does this make sense as written?]

      We have 2 semi-opposed stats (let's call them Fighting and Magic) that
      we describe using std. 7 trait scale - but using just 1 trait for
      both. To use Fighting successfully, roll 4dF /under/ the level. To use
      Magic, roll 4dF /over/ the level.

      Rolling the level /exactly/ is a trigger for *something* happening.
      More extreme rolls trigger other effects - mostly Criticals.

      Setting the level at Fair isn't allowed - it needs to be either Good
      or Poor at the minimum.

      [better explanations welcome!]
    • PatrickB
      I believe that I understand it, but I do not like how it is said. I am not trying to criticize the idea. I just find the language to have a bad flow to it.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 1, 2010
        I believe that I understand it, but I do not like how it is said. I am not trying to criticize the idea. I just find the language to have a bad flow to it.

        Would this re-wording be accurate?

        "Some traits oppose each other on the same scale. With such traits a roll is made to decide which trait is favored. Opposing traits may never have the same rank, and must have one and only one rank between them.

        For example, Magic and Fighting are opposing traits. Magic has a rank of Good, and Fighting has a rank of Poor. When the dice are rolled any result of Good or higher favors the Magic trait, and any result of Poor or lower favors the Fighting rank. Results of Fair have a unique effect."

        Of course, this language allows for opposing traits with ranks like Terrible vs. Fair, and Great vs. Legendary. I don't know if that is applicable to your system.

        If that is not the case, you could say:

        "Opposing traits do not have ranks, but instead encompass the high and low scales of the ranks ladder. One trait would cover the scale of Good and higher, while the other trait covers the scale of Poor and lower. Fair is the meeting point which neither trait owns.

        For example, Magic and Fighting are opposing traits. Magic has the higher scale of Good, and Fighting has the lower scale of Poor. When the dice are rolled any result of Good or higher favors the Magic trait, and any result of Poor or lower favors the Fighting rank. Results of Fair have a unique effect."

        Does that help?
      • Eoin Keith Boyle
        On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM, PatrickB ... Agreed. It s just... wrong the way I wrote it. Were this using anything but 4dF and trait ladder, it d be simpler
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 1, 2010
          On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM, PatrickB
          <Patrick.Benson@...> wrote:
          > I believe that I understand it, but I do not like how it is said. I am not trying to criticize the idea. I just find the language to have a bad flow to it.<

          Agreed. It's just... wrong the way I wrote it.

          Were this using anything but 4dF and trait ladder, it'd be simpler to
          explain. Let's use a d10 as an example: pick a number between 2 and 9
          (inclusive) as the target stat - roll that number, weirdness occurs.
          Roll under the number for Fighting, roll over the number for Magic.
          Rolling a 1 or a 10 causes criticals - either success or failure,
          depending on the range chosen for the roll.

          [the "0" effect is absent due to the construction of the dice - you
          can choose 5 or 6, which would be outside the range's midpoint. and
          no, I don't dig the flat 20% crit probability at all - thus wanting to
          translate this to 4dF.]

          Turning back to Fudge's ladder for a moment, saying Mediocre Fighting
          is the exact same as saying Good Magic (range for range) - it's just
          that one is defined while the other isn't. Would it be better to
          explain it that way?

          "Choose which you're better at: Fighting or Magic. You can be Good,
          Great or even Superb at it - but at the cost of having the other skill
          be Mediocre, Poor, or Terrible, respectively. When rolling for a test
          on a skill, roll *under* that level for success - a Fair roll for
          Great Magic would succeed. Rolling over is a failure - a Fair roll for
          Poor Fighting would fail. Rolling the level *exactly* has [effect]."

          The dice reading process is exactly the same - you'd want to roll low
          consistently - but this makes it completely one-sided on the ladder.
          It could be flipped to roll-over in the same way, but with a different
          bias in descriptors. Thematically, I still would like the mixed
          over-under mechanic emphasizing (subtle im)balance, but if it's
          clearer to explain it this way, it's worth dropping it.

          The bigger goal is to describe the character as being somewhere
          between the two poles of the axis marked as minimally as possible and
          in a way that's as non-invasive as possible (picking up dice =
          stopping narrative).

          If anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
        • J. Tim
          ... For some reason, the High/Low affect you describe remind me of the King Arthur Pendragon conversion on the net. Your high trait (like Magic) is your
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 2, 2010
            >[Basically, does this make sense as written?]
            >
            >We have 2 semi-opposed stats (let's call them Fighting and Magic) that
            >we describe using std. 7 trait scale - but using just 1 trait for
            >both. To use Fighting successfully, roll 4dF /under/ the level. To use
            >Magic, roll 4dF /over/ the level.
            >
            >Rolling the level /exactly/ is a trigger for *something* happening.
            >More extreme rolls trigger other effects - mostly Criticals.
            >
            >Setting the level at Fair isn't allowed - it needs to be either Good
            >or Poor at the minimum.
            >
            >[better explanations welcome!]

            For some reason, the High/Low affect you describe remind me of the
            King Arthur Pendragon conversion on the net.

            Your high trait (like Magic) is your passion and what you most often
            study, use, play with.

            Your low trait (like Fighter) is the opposite.

            In the KAP conversion, these two traits are normally opposites
            (Love/Cruelty; Cautious/Reckless; Forgiving/Vengeful) so
            Magic/Fighter *could* fit.

            The idea is that the two traits must equal 0 (zero):

            Mediocre Cautious / Good Reckless (-1/+1 is 0)
            Great Vengeful / Poor Forgiving (-2/+2 is 0)

            Casual Use of Traits:

            Roll 4DF + Trait against a difficulty of Fair. Success indicates that
            the character does that trait. Failure means that the character does
            the opposite trait.

            Note that I am assuming equalling or beating the difficulty level
            means success -- not something that I see in your description.

            Critical results: as per Fudge, a +4 (without any modifiers on
            the trait level) is a success. In Fudge Magic, a -4 no matter
            what the trait level is a failure (so Superb with a rolled or
            relative degree of -4 is a critical failure).

            -J.Tim
          • Darren Hill
            On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:30:03 +0100, Eoin Keith Boyle ... It makes perfect sense to me, but then I ve played Trollbabe. I question the usefulness of such a
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 4, 2010
              On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:30:03 +0100, Eoin Keith Boyle
              <eoin.keith.boyle@...> wrote:

              >
              > [Basically, does this make sense as written?]
              >
              > We have 2 semi-opposed stats (let's call them Fighting and Magic) that
              > we describe using std. 7 trait scale - but using just 1 trait for
              > both. To use Fighting successfully, roll 4dF /under/ the level. To use
              > Magic, roll 4dF /over/ the level.
              >
              > Rolling the level /exactly/ is a trigger for *something* happening.
              > More extreme rolls trigger other effects - mostly Criticals.
              >
              > Setting the level at Fair isn't allowed - it needs to be either Good
              > or Poor at the minimum.

              It makes perfect sense to me, but then I've played Trollbabe.

              I question the usefulness of such a system in fudge though. It works in
              trollbabe, because the difference between 'ranks' is fairly low (10% each
              +/-1). Each rank in Fudge is *huge* - people are going to be incompetent
              in the side they have low, and successes will occur too frequently in the
              side they have high (in Trollbabe, even the best score fails 20% of the
              time).


              Darren

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.