Article View: rec.games.design
Article #641Re: FUDGE Dice
From: Steffan O'Sullivan
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:36
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:36
14 lines
1060 bytes
1060 bytes
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes: > > I would still vote for the 2d6 and modify levels, allowing this as >one of the increasingly expansive options. Okay, thanks for the vote. I don't think I'll have three optional dice mechanisms in the Addenda, though: in fact, the two that are currently there feel too many. I may just drop both of the current addenda dice techniques and just go with one in the main text, and one in the addenda. Whether I use the 2d6 or 2d10 as the main text, though, I don't know - waiting for other votes and arguments to come in . . . -- - Steffan O'Sullivan sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec21.013601.2373@oz.plymouth.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!oz.plymouth.edu!sosReferences:
<1992Dec19.184005.216@oz.plymouth.edu> <1992Dec20.173202.20936@news.columbia.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: rec.games.design Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!oz.plymouth.edu!sos From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) Subject: Re: FUDGE Dice Message-ID: <1992Dec21.013601.2373@oz.plymouth.edu> Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH. References: <1992Dec19.184005.216@oz.plymouth.edu> <1992Dec20.173202.20936@news.columbia.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 01:36:01 GMT Lines: 14