[FUDGE] system basics - second half of the work

[Storm Gorm]

I fell for Fudge. I love Fudge. I have faith, hope and love for Fudge. But i just cant figure out how to make the rules work - and this is a thorn in the side of my faith, its out of balance, and it will fall and die if i cant figure it. So this is a matter of life and death, just to make that clear.

As you should know, the Fudge rulebook presents only the very most basic of rules, and short suggesting material of how to make it work in different ways. That is - it is not a set system of skills and feats etc, that is for the GM to decide and make. Something which is kind of crap - because its a LOT of work. This is the "second half of the work" - but right now, im only interested in the skill system.

The thing with which i am struggling, is the skill category system. I want to give my players the opportunity to select an as narrow skill as they wish, and make this less "expencive" than the broader skill groups.

I need these broad skill groups, which i guess should be balanced or equally difficult, or something. And i need some way of deciding the "price" of smaller skill categories compared to the broad standard ones.

This is extra difficult, because i am also translating the entire galaxy of expressions and terms to norwegian (this i can do on my own...)

Have any of you done this (with Fudge) before? I have some suggestions to how it can grouped, but the sheets are somewhere else, and, well, maybe theyre stupid, what do i know, i am a mere novice of RPGs.

The biggest problem is, again (just to make it clearer), "how to make skill categories more flexible and adjustable?". For example: I might have a broad standard category called "Athletics". Under this category i would place "Tumble", and under again: "Dodge", and then: "Ducking manouvre". Dont mind the names, if you see the point - how do i resolve this with point-buy and with skill category-map?

My english feels like an enemy right now, ill stop, and sleep on the problem - and the solution.

Storm Gorm

 

[Merova]

Moderately Broad

Hi all!

Personally, I'd go for the standard 30 levels at "Moderately Broad" skill groups, and use in-game player dramatic qualifiers to adjudicate the specifics regarding action modifiers. However, you seem to want a more concrete delineation of skill specialization. Therefore, I'd suggest something like this:


Extremely Broad Skill Group (ex: Athletics, Combat, Thieving): 2 levels

Moderately Broad Skill Group (ex: Acrobatics, Melee Combat, Stealth): 24 levels

Specific Skills (ex: Tumble, Short Sword, Move Silently): 2 levels but added to underlying "moderate skill" level.


So, if I wanted to build a stealth D&D "rogue" type of adventurer, it might look something like this:

I want my rogue to be generally athletic, so I'll use the 2 "broad" levels to buy up Athletics (purchased at "Most" level of difficulty), which will bring me to Fair level of skill. Not great, but very competant.

My "moderate" levels are going to be scattered over a bunch of skill sets, primarily in boosting my "stealth" (Most), "perception" (Easy) and "infiltration" (Hard) up to Great level of skill, which will cost 12 of my "moderate" levels. I'll buy "persuade" (Most), "ranged combat" (Most), and "acrobatics" (Hard) up to Good level of skill, which will cost 10 levels. Then I'll spend my two remaining levels to buy "melee combat" (Most) up to Fair.

With my "specific skills," I'll focus on bringing my "Hide" and "Spot" skills up to Superb, built upon my Great levels of "stealth" and "perception" respectively.

How's that look? It results in a character with decent flexibility and powerful specialization, IMO.

Thanks for reading.

---Merova

 

[Storm Gorm]

Story Element combat resolution

I gave up the objective character creation. Its too difficult. It needs too much detail-of-rules, which i get easily distracted by. I want everything to be as rules-light as they can possibly be (within reason).

So i think ill have to try the combat of "story elements", as described in the Fudge rulebook as something like this: When encountering a scene for combatting, you (the gm) ask the players what they intend to do with the situation as it presents itself. They answer, and you roll some relevant tests for the various projects and intentions worked in this clash, and write them down. And by reading off probabilities and nuances from these rolls, you just decide on some result.

But this is perhaps a little too light, and too loose, and i foresee my players begging for more rules or even worse: bargaining with me for the result i decide on - a democratic outcome. This last will of course only be of annoyance, they wont get their way, but if i know them right, they wont stop trying.

So i really wondered if anyone of you have a similar REALLY rules-light way of playing combat? Or maybe you have any hints and tips to how to get it to work smoothely, perhaps? Best of all would be perhaps if anyonw could share experience on the "story element" combat resolutiuon with me. Tell me its strengths and its weaknesses etc.

Thanks.

 

[Storm Gorm]

Subjective vs Objective

Personally, I'd go for the standard 30 levels at "Moderately Broad" skill groups

Hello Merova, and thanks for your reply. I think your solutions is proximally the best solutions for objective char creation there can be made (although you only presented the naked frameworks). But im not satisfied. I want the charcreation to be more flexible AND easier, quicker, lighter.

I understand i can not have both. So ill have to give up the whole idea of an objective character creation in the first place.

You sound like a reasonable person and player, but still (i take it) you use the objective character generation. Have you got any smashing arguments against the subjective? Are the loopholes in any given objective system of generation that fewer than those of an intelligent GMs logic?

If you do use the subjective chargen-mode, why do you limit yourself to only the "moderately broad" skill groups? Why not include all possible, all thinkable skill there is?