🚀 go-pugleaf

skinner@fuzzy.stdavids.picker.com (Andy Skinner) writes:
>
>I want to bring up the issue with which I am least comfortable in FUDGE:
>scaling damage and strength.  
> ...
>Now, just because I've figured out how to do it doesn't mean I think it even
>resembles what FUDGE ought to be.  I like multiplying the defender's damage
>levels by scale, since that is equivalent to and easier than dividing damage
>done to it by its scale.  And I like multiplying attacker's damage by
>attacker's scale, as long as I don't have to work with fractions.  I just
>am a bit uncomfortable with changing an attacker's damage levels by who
>is attacking.  I guess it would be easier if we said that all scales would
>be 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4.  Scale 1 would be whatever is most common.  That
>would get rid of the common denominator problem.

Yes, it is too complicated, I agree.  I don't yet see what we can do
about it, though, except go to a subjective system.  ("Hmm, the giant
hits you - you're incapacitated.  Let's see, the pixie does a critical
success hit to the giant?  Alright, you scratched him.")

At this point in time, I'm toying with the idea of 2 as the only scale
multiplier.  Anything else beyond this range either can't affect the
foe (if the foe is much bigger) or automatically incapacitates or worse
(if the foe is much smaller).  Critical Success by the wee one could
reduce a huge opponent by one level, I guess.  This would mean that 1/2
scale (by human standards) creature couldn't hurt a 2x scale (by human
standards) creature at all, except on critical success.  Is this
resonable?  It's certainly easy!  Note that you don't have to define a
halfling as 1/2 human scale - just give him a Poor Strength on the
human scale, for example.

>In the meantime, I'll also try to figure out different approaches.  I've
>toyed with ways of marking the damage levels down the right side of the
>page, keeping track of current levels with a paper clip which can slide
>up and down.  It is easy to add fractions by adding something of length 1/2
>to length 1/3--you don't have to know the result numerically.

Ah, yes, the nomograph.  Ancient and useful tool!  Let me know if you
come up with a good one.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu