Home | Forum | Unread | Sign in | Sign in | Beta? | Planet | Wiki
The Phoenyx
your roleplaying community

discussion > fudge > main

Discussion group for the Fudge RPG (roleplaying game).
 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
1999740169219257731
2000578539487277339469588817659558637565
2001125942533210051080175531664596516175331596
20021758689571601142382809369163150283282
20033291742866667563499625283113108123
20047124831118631351814319642728033886
200598123201254187723404690389248432467
20065412454112931391064951143327616
200778363023937781033746486353
200846222914

Subscribe | Unread | Recent | Group options | Topic options | Post
PaulTarus
ptarus

Mon

Mar 10
2008

16:51Z

Re: Fudge Pool - Importing Dice Techniques from Dice Pool Systems

On Mon, March 10, 2008 5:24 am, Mark Cunningham wrote:
On 08/03/2008, ptarus wrote:
I've worked out another dice technique that can work with Fudge traits. Why? Because I really like the game "The Pool". This technique allows you to use rules from games where the number of dice you roll matters (like The Pool), while keeping your favourite Fudge rules and adjectives.
Wow, that's pretty cool. I've been writing up a "Story Elements" combat system that could use this mechanic!
Neat! Care to share?
I might post the thing I'm working on with this once I have a minute (maybe in a week or so).
Paul
MarkCunningham
Mark Cunningham

Mon

Mar 10
2008

23:32Z

Re: Fudge Pool - Importing Dice Techniques from Dice Pool Systems

On 10/03/2008, ptarus wrote:
Wow, that's pretty cool. I've been writing up a "Story Elements" combat system that could use this mechanic!
Neat! Care to share?
I might post the thing I'm working on with this once I have a minute (maybe in a week or so).
Plan to. Still writing it though. It was meant to be short, but seemed to blow itself up quite a bit.
Mulsiphix
Mulsiphix

Tue

Mar 11
2008

05:32Z

Re: Anybody Have "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" by Cory Standish?

Hey Chris I finally got a hold of the author who created this version of Buffy. His current email address is "david.edelstein@gmail.com". Keep up the great work at Seraphim Guard. HeartQuest is my favorite roleplaying universe of all time. You guys are awesome =)

Marques


On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Chris Helton <member+ChrisHelton@phoenyx.net> wrote:
From: J. Tim <member+JTimLoud@phoenyx.net>
Hey, is there a way to get a hold of this person? I would love to see a version of that with the serial numbers filed off as a HeartQuest supplement.

Chris Helton
Seraphim Guard

FreelancePope
freelancepope

Thu

Mar 13
2008

07:36Z

Re: Fudge Pool - Importing Dice Techniques from Dice Pool Systems

Huh. I'd been trying to figure out how to marry Wushu to Fate. I think you may have just done that for me.
Jesse
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Mark Cunningham wrote:
On 10/03/2008, ptarus wrote:
Wow, that's pretty cool. I've been writing up a "Story Elements" combat system that could use this mechanic!
Neat! Care to share?
I might post the thing I'm working on with this once I have a minute (maybe in a week or so).
Plan to. Still writing it though. It was meant to be short, but seemed to blow itself up quite a bit.
Mulsiphix
Mulsiphix

Sun

Mar 16
2008

08:34Z

Hexalon

http://web.archive.org/web/20041204094801/http://hexalon.com/hhr/tableof.html

I was able to find the most recent rule set for Hexalon and several "snapshots" of the website hexalon.com. However none of the images still work. This is such an amazing setting and I would love to get my hands on anything beyond the rules that was created for Hexalon. If anybody took the time to backup the Hexalon website or files, back when they were accessible, please let me know. I did quite a bit of googleing and it seems that Hexalon has slipped in between the pages of time =(

Marques
Mulsiphix
Mulsiphix

Sun

Mar 16
2008

08:36Z

Hexalon (cont)

An example of missing goodness can be found at this URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20030218155841/b-ware.com/hive/fplans/index.html

Marques
KarenCravens
Karen Cravens

Sun

Mar 23
2008

02:12Z

Re: Hexalon (cont)

An example of missing goodness can be found at this URL
Some of that turned up here:
MarkCunningham
Mark Cunningham

Fri

Mar 28
2008

10:44Z

Fudge Story Element Combat System

I've done up a "Combat System" for Fudge that uses Story Elements. It's based on some of the discussions and stuff brought up on the Fudge List in the last few months. It should handle most of the complaints and issues about the vagueness of Story Elements without much of the heavy crunch. It's generic and can be apply to any "Combat" (or Drama) based situation from skirmishs to battlefields, from political games to social balls.
It was only meant to be a really small simple example-system but it just kept growing as I was writing it up. I haven't test it yet, but I'd love to hear feedback (good and bad) about it.
PaulTarus
ptarus

Fri

Mar 28
2008

17:51Z

Re: Fudge Story Element Combat System

It was only meant to be a really small simple example-system but it just kept growing as I was writing it up. I haven't test it yet, but I'd love to hear feedback (good and bad) about it.
Uh, wow.
That's a lot of stuff. I skimmed through it, but had a LOT of trouble following it.
Can you make a shorter version? Perhaps you can just separate out the rules and the advice, instead of having to actually rewrite the thing.
Also, it seems like your system is pretty similar to Fate (2.0). Can you explain the differences?
MarkCunningham
Mark Cunningham

Sat

Mar 29
2008

18:13Z

Re: Fudge Story Element Combat System

Can you make a shorter version?
I'll see what I can do.
Also, it seems like your system is pretty similar to Fate (2.0). Can you explain the differences?
I'm sorry but could you tell me why you think it's pretty similar to Fate?
PaulTarus
ptarus

Mon

Mar 31
2008

17:10Z

Re: Fudge Story Element Combat System

Also, it seems like your system is pretty similar to Fate (2.0). Can you explain the differences?
I'm sorry but could you tell me why you think it's pretty similar to Fate?
Well, it's a similar concept:
Both sides roll relevant traits. Things that help, like weapons, tools, and armor, become modifiers for each side's roll. Relative degree turns into a "wound effect", on a Fudge wound ladder, made generic so it can apply to all conflicts.
The only part that jumps out as different, on a quick read-through, is the initiative system, with its two "profiles".
But, it was a really quick read-through, so I've probably missed something, which is why I'm asking. Discussing the differences often reveals what's important to the designer, and what effect they're going for.
Paul
MarkCunningham
Mark Cunningham

Mon

Apr 7
2008

13:05Z

Re: Fudge Story Element Combat System

Can you make a shorter version?
I'll see what I can do.
Here you go. It's less than 1/3 of the original.
I'm sorry but could you tell me why you think it's pretty similar to Fate?
Well, it's a similar concept:
Both sides roll relevant traits. Things that help, like weapons, tools, and armor, become modifiers for each side's roll. Relative degree turns into a "wound effect", on a Fudge wound ladder, made generic so it can apply to all conflicts.
No offense but isn't that just basic Fudge extended to apply to any situation?
However, admittedly I did take that one concept from Fate. But I don't see how you would do it any other way tbh unless you want to re-invent Fudge.
The only part that jumps out as different, on a quick read-through, is the initiative system, with its two "profiles".
It's not just the initiative system that changes between the two profiles.
But, it was a really quick read-through, so I've probably missed something, which is why I'm asking. Discussing the differences often reveals what's important to the designer, and what effect they're going for.
I understand that, but it's not Fate (unless I'm horrible mistaken about what is in and not in Fate or Spirit of the Century). I did borrow heavily from Riddle of Steel and a little from Shadow of Yesterday. Also Fate is a complete system. This system is *only* focused on combat.
Mark
RobertKnop
Robert A. Knop Jr.

Fri

Apr 25
2008

03:20Z

OGL and D&D/4

--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Check out this rumor : http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/24/sleazy-new-dungeons.html If this is true, then: (a) Not since the days when TSR was T$R and demanded that nobody could do anything D&D on the web anywhere ever will the company behind D&D have been such a great example of corporate Lawful Evil, and (b) We may all end up wishing that Anne had gone with a Creative Commons licence for Fudge instead of an OGL, for even if D&D/4 full corporate evil, I seriously doubt that our community will want to say that any company that wants to publish D&D compatible stuff must forgo publishing Fudge compatible stuff.... Yet, that's what the new D&D licence will say, if the rumors are true. (I almost suspect that they'll be more clever than all of that and not just rule out OGL, but all free licenses. However, if they *just* rule out OGL, it will still suck for companies with back-catalog, but will open up a hole for Fudge and other games if Anne and others choose to take it, i.e. going with a more standardized free publication license like CC.) --=20 --Rob Knop Second Life: Prospero Frobozz E-mail: rknop@pobox.com Home Page: http://www.pobox.com/~rknop/ Blog: http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/blog/ --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIEU4PfEn1oMJSrdsRAumFAKDR8d1e73AsLeAPmTpZRYw55FBgjQCfSp7J jFXKERDlB4ko/HPNBlDACsI= =AeIn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--
ChrisHelton
Chris Helton

Fri

Apr 25
2008

13:45Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

Robert,
Keep in mind that no one has actually seen a copy of the 4e GSL (the license isn't going to be called the OGL any more) and *if* that rumor ends up occuring how many people is it going to impact who want to publish in Fudge and 4e d20.
The OGL is a perpetual license and cannot go anywhere.
Chris Helton Seraphim Guard
----- Original Message ---- From: Robert A. Knop Jr. To: fudge+main@phoenyx.net Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:20:47 PM Subject: Fudge: OGL and D&D/4
--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Check out this rumor :
If this is true, then:
(a) Not since the days when TSR was T$R and demanded that nobody could do anything D&D on the web anywhere ever will the company behind D&D have been such a great example of corporate Lawful Evil, and
(b) We may all end up wishing that Anne had gone with a Creative Commons licence for Fudge instead of an OGL, for even if D&D/4 full corporate evil, I seriously doubt that our community will want to say that any company that wants to publish D&D compatible stuff must forgo publishing Fudge compatible stuff.... Yet, that's what the new D&D licence will say, if the rumors are true. (I almost suspect that they'll be more clever than all of that and not just rule out OGL, but all free licenses. However, if they *just* rule out OGL, it will still suck for companies with back-catalog, but will open up a hole for Fudge and other games if Anne and others choose to take it, i.e. going with a more standardized free publication license like CC.)
--=20 --Rob Knop Second Life: Prospero Frobozz E-mail: rknop@pobox.com Home Page: http://www.pobox.com/~rknop/ Blog: http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/blog/
--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIEU4PfEn1oMJSrdsRAumFAKDR8d1e73AsLeAPmTpZRYw55FBgjQCfSp7J jFXKERDlB4ko/HPNBlDACsI= =AeIn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--
GmDslOnlyNet
Mike Harvey

Fri

Apr 25
2008

14:23Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

From other forums, my understanding is that: I believe I saw an email from a WOTC rep that referred to "any open license", not just OGL. Nobody knows whether the restriction is only for a single product, or for an entire company. The head of Necromancer games (who is a lawyer) understood it to mean company wide after a private discussion with WOTC, but he may have misunderstood or it may not have been their final answer. So it's just speculation, nothing is on paper and WOTC could back down. D&D 4E will not have any OGL style license at all. Companies can license the rights to create compatible products, but not open products. D&D 4E will not have (what we think of as) an SRD There will be a grandfather clause for existing OGL products, but... The d20 trademark license and logo will go away and existing d20 products will have to be re-licensed
BTW since Anne owns the Fudge copyrights she can re-license Fudge any way she pleases. Frankly it's of little concern to me. 4E will not be open, d20 is already open, and I have no interest in 4E anyway.
Mike
GmDslOnlyNet
Mike Harvey

Fri

Apr 25
2008

14:29Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

Oh, and the suggested workaround for a company-wide restriction is that companies legally spin off separate "open" and "4E" entities owned by the parent company. Or something like that. A formality to exploit a loophole.
JonathanThompson
Jonathan Thompson

Fri

Apr 25
2008

14:52Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

And you know since it was suggested they will figure out a way to close it.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Mike Harvey wrote:
Oh, and the suggested workaround for a company-wide restriction is that companies legally spin off separate "open" and "4E" entities owned by the parent company. Or something like that. A formality to exploit a loophole.
ChrisHelton
Chris Helton

Fri

Apr 25
2008

15:02Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

BTW since Anne owns the Fudge copyrights she can re-license Fudge any way she pleases. Frankly it's of little concern to me. 4E will not be open, d20 is already open, and I have no interest in 4E anyway.
Actually, Mike, that isn't correct either. There will be an open version of 4E just separate from the GSL (which would allow the use of the D&D logo). Not really all that different from the current situation of the d20 and OGL licenses.
But I'm sure that most people don't care about this (like all the other times that these sorts of issues come up).
Chris Helton Seraphim Guard
ChristopherFletc
Christopher Fletcher

Fri

Apr 25
2008

15:07Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

--- Mike Harvey wrote:
Oh, and the suggested workaround for a company-wide restriction is that companies legally spin off separate "open" and "4E" entities owned by the parent company. Or something like that. A formality to exploit a loophole.
My understanding is that they've already thought about that and worked to block it. If the companies are seperate, that's fine. For example, Necromancer games is doing 4E stuff, and Paizo is doing OGL stuff. That's not a problem for WotC because Paizo is it's own seperate company, even though Necromancer games has a good relationship with them.
If you care to sort through the (currently) 33 page thread over at ENWorld, it's explicitly stated that the Necro/Paizo thing was ok for this reason. The implication was that if you had a 2nd "company" which was really just another extension of you, WotC would hammer you for it.
And given that they can afford to drop a couple of million for advertising, I doubt anyone will be able to afford to make a legal challenge of whatever WotC is planning on doing.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
CarlCravens
Carl D Cravens

Fri

Apr 25
2008

15:25Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

This thread is quickly getting out of the realm of interest to Fudge publishers and especially the general audience.
This is already being discussed on the publisher's mailing list, where Ann has said she'll consider adding an additional license (Creative Commons, most likely) if it will help out publishers. (And there is at least one publisher who was hoping to release both Fudge and D&D 4th versions of his material.)
But I don't think there's a lot of good to be had out of general discussions based on rumor and speculation about what WotC is going to Let's at least wait until they've made an official announcement.
MikeConway
Mike Conway

Fri

Apr 25
2008

15:31Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

Since I'm a bit of an optimist, I feel that, no matter what, there is always a way.

As has been pointed put, these are only rumors, and they're getting blown out of proportion. Until we see the GSL, we flat-out don't know.

I'm sure there are a lot of people here that this won't even affect, either because they'll just go on with their d20 stuff, or they don't publish any D&D-compatible material of any edition. On the other hand, for those of us who wanted to support 4e but still want to produce OGL, it's a problem.

My hope is one interpretation that came from something Linae Foster said, which amounts to this being product-to-product: You can't publish *A* product under both OGL and GSL, which to me means that such a product with the same basis and information *could* be published under OGL and rewritten into a different product for 4e, as long as they're not the *exact same product*.

At least, I hope.

Mike Conway
--
Heroes of Oz RPG, now in playtest - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/heroesofoz/
Official Heroes of Oz site: http://www.dsemedia.com/heroesofoz/
Layers RPG: Dimension Travel with a dark twist, Now in brainstorm
Darkstar Eclectic Media - The Story Matters - http://www.dsemedia.com
MikeConway
Mike Conway

Fri

Apr 25
2008

15:44Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Carl D Cravens (Mod) <member+CarlCravens@phoenyx.net> wrote:
But I don't think there's a lot of good to be had out of general
discussions based on rumor and speculation about what WotC is going to
do.  Let's at least wait until they've made an official announcement.

I agree wholeheartedly, Carl. The speculation that's running about is turning into a coup on ENworld and it's not doing any good in other places.  For all we know, they might be looking at the storm this has created and are changing their mind about it ("Oh, crap, they hate us! Nobody will support us now!"). Or they might be staying the course, or even trying to word it a different way to allow publisher more options.

We flat-out DON'T KNOW, and further speculation can only create more badwill. We don't want that, right guys?

Mike Conway
--
Heroes of Oz RPG, now in playtest - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/heroesofoz/
Official Heroes of Oz site: http://www.dsemedia.com/heroesofoz/
Layers RPG: Dimension Travel with a dark twist, Now in brainstorm
Darkstar Eclectic Media - The Story Matters - http://www.dsemedia.com
JonathanThompson
Jonathan Thompson

Sat

Apr 26
2008

02:46Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

In the end it comes down to one thing. A publisher is going to do what he or she feels is best for the company. If it means publishing material for only one system, then thats what they are going to do.
ChristopherBurke
Christopher Burke

Sat

Apr 26
2008

14:50Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

Here's an excerpt from a post in another thread (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4186210&postcount=366).  Only time will tell, but I don't think WotC means to destroy the gaming industry that isn't 4th Ed. D&D.  Hopefully their lawyers get the wording right, but only time will tell.  Still, the GSL comes out months before the release of the 4th Ed. and before any 4th Ed. products can be released so there will be time to tweak it anyway.  I guess we'll see in the beginning of June.  At any rate, I have to tip my hat to the minds at WotC for generating all this free publicity for themselves.  There's certainly a lot of buzz going around.
 
In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one

Chris
chrisburke@3dhog.com
ChristopherFletc
Christopher Fletcher

Sun

Apr 27
2008

15:15Z

Re: OGL and D&D/4

--- Christopher Burke wrote:
time will tell. Still, the GSL comes out months before the release of the 4th Ed. and before any 4th Ed. products can be released so there will be time to tweak it anyway. I guess we'll see in the beginning of June.
Actually, no you're not going to be seeing the GSL months earlier than 4E. In fact, you can go to their website and see that 4E is planned to be released on June 7th. Here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome
You can see WotC's bit on their webpage about the GSL here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a
For those that don't feel like clicking the links, here's a copy/paste of the relevant bits:
"The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.
The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contacted by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008."
There's been unhappiness because with the license coming so late (and the effective start date of it), it means that 3rd party companies won't be able to have product at GenCon.
It's only a very small group of people that's had anything to do with the GSL and obviously it's not even clear to those people (like Necromancer Games) exactly what the limits and restrictions are at this point.
As for "tweaking" the license, who knows. It depends on what comes out and what people are screaming about as to whether there'll be any "tweaking" done. I think what they're mostly likely to tweak for are those people that have released games using the OGL license but in fact aren't actually d20 based games. Any publishers that have something like that _and_ want to do something related to 4E adventures are probably going to be the ones they'll tweak for.
On the whole, I think there's a lot of needless chest beating. And it's really not going to make a difference I don't think.
Back when Marvel first conceived of the Ultimates line (a remake and update of the Avengers for a modern audience) the internet went wild with it's... "dislike" ... of the idea. Marvel ignored them and published it, and it was their best selling title to date. And now looking around, there've been a few more Ultimate revisions that seem to have done fine as well. Marvel took away the lesson, "people's opinions on the internet don't matter".
WotC has learned a slightly different lesson in some ways it seems in that they do pay attention at least somewhat, but it doesn't seem to influence their decisions past a certain small point.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Refresh