[was "Shy Guy Reveals All"]
jughrin@yahoo.com wrote:
>I think the function in rpgs is to allow people to explore
>different aspects of their/human personality, or at least
>to give them min/max-ing opportunities while they
>do so. :)
How important *are* min-max opportunities in RPGs? Or more generally,
how important is the "game"?
How does "the game" relate to Fudge? My group seems to feel that
Fudge is anti-game and is somehow inherently different (and inferior)
to other games because you can't powergame or min-max in in, and
there aren't enough crunchy bits. I tend to disagree; the game will
be as crunchy as you make it, whether Fudge or D&D. But there is
still this weird perception that Fudge isn't an RPG, it is freeform
thespianism and everything is subjective. (This is in addition to the
assumption that Fudge is incomplete. I am starting to think that the
incompleteness accusation is related to the perceived lack of crunchy
bits, that for most people the crunchy bits ARE the game.)
BTW I am using the Robin Laws definition of crunchy bits here: those
things that define what the the PCs can do within the game. Crunchy
bits are not just rules, they are player knowledge of how things
work, and they are what make metagaming possible. When the crunchy
bits are well-defined, or there are a lot of them, players are
favored; when crunchy bits are few or vague, the GM is favored.
I now believe that lack of sufficient crunchy bits are behind my
group's aversion to Fudge. We've been playing D&D3, which is the
crunchiest game I've ever played. Champs is crunchy, but is balanced
by the freeform point-build system (which allows the GM great freedom
in how he builds and balances opponents) and also the limitation
system (which puts a check on players). D&D has no character
limitations at all, and the GM is hampered in his attempts to create
interesting opponents by the class/level/CR system. This makes for a
very tight system that players can predict and optimize characters
and tactics for, which greatly empowers them.
Anyway, how crunchy are your games? How much "game" do you
allow/insert in Fudge?
Mike
--
Mike Harvey -- Beaverton, OR
http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/
-- -----------------------------------------------
The Fudge List FAQ is at http://fudge.phoenyx.net/
** Don't start deliberately off-topic threads. **
| Sequence | First Line | Username | Date |
| 0 |
well-defined, or there are a lot of them, players are >>favored; when
crunchy bits are few or vague, the GM is favored. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-08 18:44:54 |
| 1 |
people to > explore > >different aspects of their/human personality,
or at > least > >to give them min/max-ing opportunities while they >
more generally, > how important is the "game"? |
JUghrin |
2002-04-08 18:51:36 |
| 2 |
have come to believe that rules always benefit the players and >hinder
the GM. |
PatRick |
2002-04-08 20:44:11 |
| 3 |
more generally, how important is the "game"? |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-09 00:23:41 |
| 4 |
turns gm-ing and >all had PCs in the game. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-09 02:30:58 |
| 5 |
generally, >how important is the "game"? |
MikeJones |
2002-04-08 18:35:11 |
| 6 |
is necessary to a > smooth and > exciting game, and is one of the GM's
most important > functions. |
GrogThing |
2002-04-09 00:54:59 |
| 7 |
Fudge Terra Incognita/Cthulhu Mythos game for the same >players. |
PatRick |
2002-04-08 23:04:06 |
| 8 |
(restrictive) crunchy bits written into the game are inversly needed >
to player familiarity with the crunchy bits inherent in the setting.
The > more the players know the setting the more the crunchy rules
bits can shift > to being focus deta |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 10:50:04 |
| 9 |
D&D: > Often the rules are followed even when they make no > sense or
produce crazy results. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 10:43:54 |
| 10 |
term "power gaming". |
BillHamilton |
2002-04-09 13:45:47 |
| 11 |
Guy Reveals All"] > How does "the game" relate to Fudge? |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 09:08:51 |
| 12 |
function in rpgs is to allow people to explore >different aspects of
their/human personality, or at least >to give them min/max-ing
opportunities while they >do so. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-08 17:00:18 |
| 13 |
there really are no > rules. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-09 18:32:23 |
| 14 |
metaphor, as that implies a certain level of value (which > I do not
intend), but that could be used as well. |
RobDonoghue |
2002-04-09 20:21:26 |
| 15 |
refers to the degree of atomization or specifity in a >rule-set. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-09 20:45:21 |
| 16 |
generally, > how important is the "game"? |
RohanLight |
2002-04-09 23:40:01 |
| 17 |
On, 4/9/2002, Rodney said: > I like my 'version' of Fudge combat the
best. |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-10 01:36:00 |
| 18 |
So, given a Good Fairy (scale -4) and a Good Ogre (scale +2)... |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 02:00:21 |
| 19 |
burried rules that > give the game it's mystery and 'spirit'. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-10 01:55:44 |
| 20 |
So scale subtracts from offense and defense... |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-10 03:00:55 |
| 21 |
from offense and defense... |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-10 03:32:05 |
| 22 |
press at certain dramatic points that do meaningful things. |
RohanLight |
2002-04-10 03:57:38 |
| 23 |
more than 60' deep - it'll only > be a scratch." Yeah, i've gotta bend
my mind all kinds of directions to get > any fun out of that type of
play. |
Lizard |
2002-04-09 16:11:11 |
| 24 |
the only way I > could come up with something that would work, was to
use > Scale Difference, which is a bit too > clunky and confusing to
most players at first. |
CarolCollica |
2002-04-10 13:44:08 |
| 25 |
having a 25 strength in AD&D 1st edition. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-10 11:07:45 |
| 26 |
it'll > > only be a scratch." Yeah, i've gotta bend my mind all kinds
of directions > > to get any fun out of that type of play. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-10 08:38:14 |
| 27 |
never allow an FP to be >used in that way. |
PatRick |
2002-04-10 14:57:25 |
| 28 |
the > next iteration of the SAME DISCUSSION) out of existence? |
TimHuntley |
2002-04-10 15:06:06 |
| 29 |
books (and i think it was in Marvel > Super > >Heroes, too) which
points out to us that a human being (well, > most human > >beings)
cannot possibly role-play a character with superhuman > intelligence >
of stats this high is not "power gaming |
DavidRCrowell |
2002-04-10 23:23:31 |
| 30 |
On, 4/10/2002, Rodney said: > I was thinking about that today. |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-10 20:46:06 |
| 31 |
unpopular option on this mailing list because of the > "chart lookup",
I use it in my games and after awhile the players really get a handle
on it and they start talking like this "Oh, a 2x4 that's a Mid" I like
the results. |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-11 00:22:34 |
| 32 |
[mailto:fudge-error@phoenyx.net]On Behalf >Of Lxndr > Perhaps it's
just me, but I interpreted "the box" in this >statement as >"that
which you should attempt to think outside of, as well as within." >
The "box" isn't the DMG (in my own humble |
JUghrin |
2002-04-11 11:00:20 |
| 33 |
While I agree with much of what you say, there are a couple points I
feel a need to comment on: > There are those who argue that the GM can
do anything he wants > anytime he wants, but this is not true. |
PaulWatson |
2002-04-16 05:06:04 |
| 34 |
rules. |
PaulWatson |
2002-04-17 05:33:04 |
| 35 |
Force, > or a set of characters in Dungeon Seige, just > doesn't count
in my book > as real role playing. |
GrogThing |
2002-04-09 01:32:45 |
| 36 |
tend to be "too forgiving" whenever I'm left to my own > devices.
Hence, when I write crunchy bits, I tend to > overcompensate and write
nasty ones. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 10:34:35 |
| 37 |
Intimidate relies on Charisma in DD3e. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 13:26:03 |
| 38 |
anytime he > > > wants, but this is not true. |
PaulWatson |
2002-04-17 05:31:00 |
| 39 |
the love of all that is holy, please do nto > let this turn into an
actual discussion of falling rules. |
CarlCravens |
2002-04-16 21:27:03 |
| 40 |
I don't like the min/mid/max idea because it's too subjective for the
Claymore setting. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-11 01:18:44 |
| 41 |
someone changes it, or when this discussion comes up again in >two
months. |
MikeJones |
2002-04-10 16:46:48 |
| 42 |
Jim's idea fixed the problem, I think. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 03:45:14 |
| 43 |
That makes sense and is easy to implement. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 02:42:29 |
| 44 |
Mike, don't get me wrong. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 02:40:10 |
| 45 |
Right. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 01:52:31 |
| 46 |
scale for my game due to the Claymoreishness... |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-10 01:30:56 |
| 47 |
says in the DMG and in the FAQ > that other attributes can be used for
skills when appropriate. |
Lxndr |
2002-04-09 23:46:48 |
| 48 |
Using the candy bar illustration of "crunchy" for a Nestlie Cruch bar,
and "smooth" for a Hersey Bar, and then comparing that to game
systems... |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 01:06:43 |
| 49 |
metaphor, as that implies a certain level of value (which > I do not
intend), but that could be used as well. |
PatRick |
2002-04-09 19:15:22 |
| 50 |
No offense intended to anyone at all, however, whatever happened to
trimming your quotes? |
TimHuntley |
2002-04-09 19:06:49 |
| 51 |
all accurate. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-09 18:31:19 |
| 52 |
the only Grey > Ghost publication I > >> consider a "flop." Call it a
learning experience. |
GrogThing |
2002-04-09 18:08:19 |
| 53 |
specific citations about Dungeons & Dragons and >Vampire, but we'll
leave it at that. |
PatRick |
2002-04-09 18:02:31 |
| 54 |
type, > extraordinary abilities might be called feats, > spells,
schticks, disciplines, high tech gear, psionics > or whatever. |
Lizard |
2002-04-09 17:45:24 |
| 55 |
the entire concept of "crunchy" at the moment. |
RobDonoghue |
2002-04-09 17:32:40 |
| 56 |
great deal about GMing and roleplaying just by reading > Terry
Pratchett's Discworld series (which has nothing directly to do with >
gaming). |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-09 13:15:40 |
| 57 |
Gatecrasher 2nd Edition is also the only Grey Ghost publication I >
consider a "flop." Call it a learning experience. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 12:59:19 |
| 58 |
if strictly applied can sometimes be the problem. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 12:54:44 |
| 59 |
only needs to tell > you what is different from what you already know,
instead of trying > to dictate everything to the last detail. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 12:51:57 |
| 60 |
be introduced into RPGs via a D&D or > GURPS like, number crunching,
power game. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 12:41:54 |
| 61 |
For "Crunchy Fudge" see the Gatecrasher game (2nd edition, the Fudge
version). |
GhostGames |
2002-04-09 12:09:12 |
| 62 |
April 08, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: Re: FUDGE: Crunchy Bits > > >
Player-favored means the players are in control, via the authority of
the > rules. |
DavidRCrowell |
2002-04-09 10:25:18 |
| 63 |
Good Post Grogthing! |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-09 01:46:40 |
| 64 |
I'm not saying your a rotten GM Mike in that previous posting. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-09 01:42:56 |
| 65 |
On, 4/8/2002, gm said: > How important *are* min-max opportunities in
RPGs? |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-08 18:46:38 |
| 66 |
related to the > perceived lack of > crunchy > >bits, that for most
people the crunchy bits ARE the > game.) I try to keep the "Game" out
of it as much as possible. |
Mitchw |
2002-04-08 18:27:08 |
| 67 |
using the bare minimum of its rules >> (Story Element Combat) meant
that what used to be a four-hour combat >> turned into, at times, just
_minutes_. |
WilliamSpencer |
2002-10-02 14:53:10 |
| 68 |
would you ask me what I am thinking and give me a chance to undo > the
action? |
PaulWatson |
2002-04-17 22:06:12 |
| 69 |
with situations like this as a series of 2 or 3 > (very rarely more)
contingencies. |
PeterMikelsons |
2002-04-17 22:03:10 |
| 70 |
minimize checking with the GM. |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-17 20:47:19 |
| 71 |
rule of thumb is common sense. |
PeterMikelsons |
2002-04-17 20:22:20 |
| 72 |
Cthulhu > > character survive a 60' drop? |
PaulWatson |
2002-04-17 19:55:45 |
| 73 |
of thumb is common sense. |
PeterMikelsons |
2002-04-17 18:23:54 |
| 74 |
damage, (or maybe -9, but that's >an old thread) not -3. |
PatRick |
2002-04-11 02:03:57 |
| 75 |
gaming" but > just "character growth and development". |
TimHuntley |
2002-04-10 23:41:20 |
| 76 |
average > out > > the individuals response to complex situations. |
RohanLight |
2002-04-10 21:02:27 |
| 77 |
I was thinking about that today. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 19:51:30 |
| 78 |
table seems to have the same effect as changing > the scaling of a
pixie from -10 to -3. |
PeterMikelsons |
2002-04-10 19:27:10 |
| 79 |
pretty stocky at scale - 4, until I >looked at FudgeMore and saw your
Scale Table, which compresses everything >onto a -4 to +4 range.
FudgeMore Fairy Kind average around 1 kg in mass, >which is about
Scale -10 in "vanilla" Fudge terms. |
PatRick |
2002-04-10 18:18:19 |
| 80 |
"Rodney E. |
PeterMikelsons |
2002-04-10 17:42:09 |
| 81 |
line. |
FredHicks |
2002-04-10 15:50:26 |
| 82 |
On, 4/9/2002, Rodney said: > On a Fair die roll, the Ogre would take a
Hurt using a Superb Physical > Power. |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-10 15:46:46 |
| 83 |
procmailing by subject line. |
TimothyJMiller |
2002-04-10 15:29:32 |
| 84 |
GURPS books (and i think it was in Marvel Super >Heroes, too) which
points out to us that a human being (well, most human >beings) cannot
possibly role-play a character with superhuman intelligence >or
wisdom. |
PatRick |
2002-04-10 14:57:20 |
| 85 |
can we get a subtopic for this, so I can procmail it (and the > next
iteration of the SAME DISCUSSION) out of existence? |
FredHicks |
2002-04-10 14:47:39 |
| 86 |
yadda ] Hey Carl, can we get a subtopic for this, so I can procmail it
(and the next iteration of the SAME DISCUSSION) out of existence? |
TimothyJMiller |
2002-04-10 13:42:46 |
| 87 |
attributes a lot; I have 14 and take combinations of three to average
out > the individuals response to complex situations. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-10 09:09:16 |
| 88 |
Capacity Fair > Ogre: Scale +2, Skill Fair, Strength and Damage
Capacity Fair > > Fairy attacks Ogre (gains +3 to hit -- 1/2 of scale
difference) Superb vs > Fair (the Fairy will probably hit) > > Ogre
attacks Fairy (takes -3 penalty) Terrible |
PSimmons |
2002-04-10 04:01:15 |
| 89 |
In the base Fudge rules, doesn't scale affect the minimum amount you
need to roll to hit a target, rather than apply a modifier to your
attack roll? |
KenHood |
2002-04-10 03:22:52 |
| 90 |
Okay, here is the updated version of FudgeMore!
http://claymore.50megs.com/fudgemore040902.zip Enjoy all my crunchy
bits! |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 03:04:09 |
| 91 |
On, 4/9/2002, Rodney said: > So a Good Fairy would be Legendary +3 for
defense, and a Good Ogre would > have a "to hit" of Abysmal. |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-10 02:19:01 |
| 92 |
On, 4/9/2002, Rodney said: > So, given a Good Fairy (scale -4) and a
Good Ogre (scale +2)... |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-10 02:13:08 |
| 93 |
On, 4/9/2002, James said: > If the ogre manages to hit the fairy --
squashed fairy. |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-10 01:51:31 |
| 94 |
I resemble that remark... |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-10 00:46:32 |
| 95 |
often treated > with as much loving care as a car; they are groomed,
waxed, > beefed up, given better tires etc. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-10 00:28:26 |
| 96 |
combat. |
Lxndr |
2002-04-09 23:52:10 |
| 97 |
the box. |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-09 23:12:38 |
| 98 |
the FAQ >>that other attributes can be used for skills when
appropriate. |
Lizard |
2002-04-09 23:31:08 |
| 99 |
this... |
FredHicks |
2002-04-09 18:58:59 |
| 100 |
my > >experience. |
GrogThing |
2002-04-09 18:49:42 |
| 101 |
On, 4/9/2002, James said: > This is interesting to me because after
reading Discworld, I found myself > tremendously inspired to re-build
my ADD world in Fantasy Hero (my favorite > system before Fudge) >
Who'd have believed Terry Pratchett wo |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-09 18:45:36 |
| 102 |
Let me see if I understand this... |
KenHood |
2002-04-09 18:44:00 |
| 103 |
Expanded Edition > came in :) that i really sat down and went through
it and realized that it's > quite the opposite of what i thought -
it's more complete than i could want, > because it leaves everything
for me to deal with As i choose, When |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-09 18:32:08 |
| 104 |
That is, men would, as a group, be more interested > in shopping if it
meant a) never javing to leave the > house and b) they were shopping
for super powers. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-09 18:32:06 |
| 105 |
bits, and it > works great. |
SOs |
2002-04-09 17:23:58 |
| 106 |
rules as a Bad Thing. |
RobDonoghue |
2002-04-09 17:13:02 |
| 107 |
was > to me. |
TimHuntley |
2002-04-09 17:08:33 |
| 108 |
wrote... |
BrianAQuirt |
2002-04-09 17:06:08 |
| 109 |
His CHA is low (presumably > because he is a half orc and not gifted
in interpersonal > communication/relations) but my DM refuses to
accept the fact that maybe, > just maybe, this half orc could
intimidate someone using his brutal strength > |
Lizard |
2002-04-09 16:16:14 |
| 110 |
¡Saludetes! |
BetOte |
2002-04-09 16:06:09 |
| 111 |
only Grey Ghost publication I > consider a "flop." Call it a learning
experience. |
Lizard |
2002-04-09 15:56:03 |
| 112 |
same point a few post ago. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 15:49:53 |
| 113 |
Didn't we just do this argument to death [again]? |
TimothyJMiller |
2002-04-09 15:39:47 |
| 114 |
I'm unclear on the entire concept of "crunchy" at the moment. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 14:56:35 |
| 115 |
there are > other ways to play. |
GrogThing |
2002-04-09 14:53:34 |
| 116 |
rules or with the Players perception of what >is "fare" and what is
not "fare", and how "fare" the GM is. |
BillHamilton |
2002-04-09 14:19:09 |
| 117 |
loved T2000! |
GrogThing |
2002-04-09 13:47:52 |
| 118 |
Ann wrote... |
KenHood |
2002-04-09 13:32:33 |
| 119 |
why is because he was thinking in his D&D Box - > it is not written,
thus it cannot be done. |
JamesPacek |
2002-04-09 13:11:17 |
| 120 |
are those who argue that the GM can do anything he wants anytime he >
suddently change the combat rules on your players, see what their
reaction is. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 12:24:14 |
| 121 |
April 08, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: Re: FUDGE: Crunchy Bits > "Thus broken
rules teach players not to trust the GM, but the GM is only >
"untrustworthy" because the rules are broken. |
DavidRCrowell |
2002-04-09 10:31:08 |
| 122 |
think you are onto something here. |
StephanBeal |
2002-04-09 10:08:06 |
| 123 |
saying I'm now less mature > than I was five years ago, now that I'm
married and out of school? |
JimDickinson |
2002-04-09 06:23:00 |
| 124 |
to > feel like they can manipulate the system. |
PSimmons |
2002-04-09 02:18:45 |
| 125 |
"Thus broken rules teach players not to trust the GM, but the GM is
only "untrustworthy" because the rules are broken. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-09 01:37:05 |
| 126 |
this. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-09 01:12:07 |
| 127 |
given aspect of the game. |
RodneyEBarnes |
2002-04-09 00:45:39 |
| 128 |
I have admittedly been only skimming this thread at the moment, but to
throw in my two cents: Crunchy rules and games can be a great aid if
players are not familiar with the world/background. |
DavidRCrowell |
2002-04-08 22:04:59 |
| 129 |
¡Saludetes! |
BetOte |
2002-04-08 19:43:44 |
| 130 |
John U. |
KenHood |
2002-04-08 19:23:09 |
| 131 |
running >Fudge than when running D&D. |
MikeJones |
2002-04-08 19:15:44 |
| 132 |
and >hinder the GM. |
MikeJones |
2002-04-08 19:09:48 |
| 133 |
well-defined, or there are a lot of them, players are >>favored; when
crunchy bits are few or vague, the GM is favored. |
GmDslOnlyNet |
2002-04-08 19:02:07 |
| 134 |
in RPGs? |
PatRick |
2002-04-08 18:00:52 |
| 135 |
This is a long post that's been sitting in my unsent-messages folder
for nearly six months waiting on me to complete it. |
CarlCravens |
2002-09-28 03:26:58 |
| 136 |
the bare minimum of its rules > (Story Element Combat) meant that what
used to be a four-hour combat > turned into, at times, just _minutes_.
Suddenly, I had a six-hour game > session that I couldn't fill... |
JOn |
2002-10-02 00:13:06 |
| 137 |
question, then, is how can this shift be made more comfortable, and
for > those of us trying to convert a player of the one style to our
style of > play, how can we make it more _attractive_? |
RobertKnop |
2002-09-28 12:09:26 |
| 138 |
possible to do the "I need to > stall two hours so I'll start a fight"
trick in a rules-light system, > you just have to be more creative
with how you handle the fight. |
DarrenHill |
2002-10-02 23:29:40 |
| 139 |
specific issue where > (generalizing) rules light players tend to take
issue with (generalizing) > rules-heavy players. |
Lizard |
2002-04-09 17:32:05 |