This chapter covers how to determine whether or not a character
succeeds at an attempted action. In the previous chapters, traits
were defined in terms of levels: Superb, Great, Good, etc. This
chapter explains how those levels affect a character's chances of
success at an action, whether fighting a giant or tracking down a
clue. Sometimes a Fair result is sufficient to complete a task, and
sometimes a Good - or better! - result is needed. The better your
skill, the better your chances of getting these higher results.
4.1 Action Resolution Terms
There is no need to roll the dice when a character performs an action that is so easy as to be automatic. Likewise, an action so difficult that it has no chance to succeed requires no roll, either - it simply can't be done. The dice are needed for the middle ground, where the outcome of an action is uncertain.
The GM is encouraged to keep die-rolling to a minimum. Do not make the players roll the dice when their characters do mundane things. There is no need to make a roll to see if someone can cook lunch properly, or pick an item from a shelf, or climb a ladder, etc. It's not a bad idea to extend this philosophy a bit, even. Don't make them roll to climb a cliff unless it's a difficult cliff. Even then, a Superb climber shouldn't need a roll - he should get up it automatically unless it's a very difficult cliff!
For any action the player character wishes to perform, the Game Master
must determine which trait is tested. (This will usually be a skill
or an attribute.) If the action is Unopposed, the GM also determines
the Difficulty Level - usually Fair. (See also Section 4.5, Opposed Actions.)
4.21 Reading the Dice
Of the three dice techniques presented in FUDGE, this one is recommended. It gives results from -4 to +4 quickly and easily, without intruding into roleplaying or requiring complex math.
Each player and the GM need 2d6, and each person should preferably have two different colors or sizes. One die must be designated the "plus" or "positive" die, and the other the "minus" or "negative" die. Ideally, all players will have uniform sets of dice (for example, one red and one white), and all will use the same color to be the plus die. (If you only have two identical dice, such as borrowed from a board game, place your pencil on the table pointing away from you. Assign one side of the pencil to be plus, the other minus, and roll one die on each side of the pencil.)
When a die roll is called for, the player rolls both dice and examines them. If they are doubles, he has scored his trait level exactly - leave both dice on the table.
If the dice show different numbers, the player should physically remove the higher die from the table, leaving only the lesser number rolled. That number on that die, either plus or minus, is the result. If the die left on the table is the plus die showing a 3, for example, the player rolled +3 above his trait level. If it is the minus die showing a 1, however, he just rolled a -1 to his trait level.
There are two exceptions to the rule above: results of +5 and -5. These results are too extreme for FUDGE, so they are converted to a +0 result: the character just achieved his trait level. They do not occur very often, so no special care need be taken to watch out for them. When the GM hears "Plus five" or "Minus five" as a result, she can simply say, "That means zero in FUDGE," and the game goes on.
Trying to read a non-zero result while both dice are on the table can be a bit confusing - it is best to actually remove the higher die from your view. This makes reading the result extremely easy, which speeds up play and keeps the focus on the roleplaying, not on the dice.
The trait levels again are:
+3 Superb
+2 Great
+1 Good
0 Fair
-1 Mediocre
-2 Poor
-3 Terrible
While the numbers are optional, it can be helpful to include them on the character sheet. They often make determining the final result easier. For example, if your skill is Good and you roll a -3 result on a particular action, it might be easier to envision (1 - 3 = -2) than (Good -3 = Poor). Or, you could just use your finger and count down three levels from your trait level! Example: Nathaniel, who has a Good Bow Skill, is shooting in an archery contest. He rolls two dice, using the procedure described above. If he rolls a 0, he gets a result equal to his skill: Good, in this case. If he rolls a +1, however, he gets a Great result, since Great is one level higher than his Good Archery skill. If he rolls a -3, unlucky Nathaniel has just made a Poor shot.
Note that it is not always necessary to figure the exact rolled degree. If you only need to know whether or not a character succeeded at something, it is usually sufficient for the player simply to announce the appropriate trait level and the die roll result. The game goes much faster this way. For example, a player wants his character, Captain Wallop of the Space Patrol, to fly between two asteroids that are fairly close together. The GM says this requires a Great Difficulty Level Piloting roll and asks the player to roll the dice. The player looks up Captain Wallop's Piloting skill, which is Great, and rolls a +2 result. He simply announces "Great +2" as the result. This answer is sufficient - the GM knows that Captain Wallop not only succeeded at the task, but didn't even come close to damaging his craft. There is no need, in this case, to figure out the exact level "Great +2" represents. In this case, only if the announced result was obviously close to the Difficulty Level would it be necessary to figure it out exactly.
Of course, there are many times when you want to know exactly how well
the character did, even if it's not a matter of being close. If the
character is composing a poem, for example, and his Poetry skill is
Fair, you will want to figure out what "Fair+2" means: it means he
just wrote a Great poem! There are many other instances where degrees
of success is more important than merely knowing success/failure.
4.22 Other Dice Techniques
For those who dislike the dice technique in the previous section, two different options are available. They do not alter the odds of achieving a certain result.
A table can also be used with this last method, if desired. This could be printed on each character sheet, as follows:
Rolled: | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Result: | +0 | -4 | -3 | -2 | -1 | +0 | +1 | +2 | +3 | +4 | +0
The following table is provided so that players can better evaluate their chances of success.
Chance of achieving +4 or better: 6%.
Chance of achieving +3 or better: 14%.
Chance of achieving +2 or better: 25%.
Chance of achieving +1 or better: 39%.
Chance of achieving 0 or better: 61%.
Chance of achieving -1 or better: 75%.
Chance of achieving -2 or better: 86%.
Chance of achieving -3 or better: 94%.
Chance of achieving -4 or better: 100%
Thus, if your trait is Fair, and the GM says you need a Good result or
better to succeed, you need to roll +1 or better. You'll do this
about two times out of five, on the average.
4.3 Action Modifiers
There may be modifiers for any given action, which can affect the odds referred to in the preceding section.
A modifier of -1 means the trait is reduced by one for the matter at hand. (This is not a permanent reduction.) Likewise, modifiers can temporarily improve a character's traits. Examples: Joe, Good with a sword, is Hurt (-1 to all actions). He is thus only Fair with his sword until he's healed. (In fact, he's at -1 to all relevant traits.) Jill has Mediocre Lockpicking skills, but an exceptionally fine set of lock picks gives her a Fair Lockpicking skill while she's using them.
If a character has a secondary trait that could contribute significantly to a task, the GM may allow a +1 bonus if the trait is Good or better. Example: Verne is at the library, researching an obscure South American Indian ritual. He uses his Research skill of Good, but he also has a Good Anthropology skill. The GM decides this is significant enough to give Verne a Great Research skill for this occasion. If his Anthropology skill were Superb, the GM could simply let Verne use that instead of Research: you don't get to be Superb in Anthropology without having done a lot of research in the subject!
Other conditions may grant a +/-1 to any trait. In FUDGE, +/-2 is a
large modifier - +/-3 is the maximum that should ever be granted
except under extreme conditions.
4.4 Unopposed Actions
For each Unopposed action, the GM sets a Difficulty Level (Fair is the most common) and announces which trait should be rolled against. If no Skill seems relevant, choose the most appropriate Attribute. If there is a relative Skill, but the character is untrained in it (it's not listed on his character sheet), then use the default: usually Poor. If a high attribute could logically help an untrained skill, set the default at Mediocre. For example, a character wishes to palm some coins without being observed. The GM says to use Sleight of Hand skill, but the character is untrained in Sleight of Hand. The player points out that the character's Dexterity attribute is Superb, so the GM allows a default of Mediocre Sleight of Hand for this attempt.
The player then rolls against the character's trait level, and tries to match or surpass the Difficulty Level set by the GM. In cases where there are degrees of success, the better the roll, the better the character did; the worse the roll, the worse the character did.
In setting the Difficulty Level of a task, the GM should remember that Poor is the default for most skills. The average trained climber can climb a Fair cliff most of the time, but the average untrained climber will usually get a Poor result. In the example in Section 4.2 (Nathaniel shooting at an archery target), if the target is large and close, even a Mediocre archer could be expected to hit it: Mediocre Difficulty Level. If it were much smaller and farther away, perhaps only a Great archer could expect to hit it regularly: Great Difficulty Level. And so on.
Example of setting Difficulty Level: Two PCs (Mickey and Arnold) and an NPC guide (Parri) come to a cliff the guide tells them they have to climb. The GM announces this is a difficult, but not impossible, cliff: a Good Difficulty Level roll is required to scale it with no delays or complications. Checking the character sheets, they find that Parri's Climbing skill is Great and Mickey's is Good. Arnold's character sheet doesn't list Climbing, so his skill level is at default: Poor. Parri and Mickey decide to climb it, then lower a rope for Arnold.
Parri rolls a +1 result, which means a rolled degree of Superb, so she gets up the cliff without difficulty, and much more quickly than expected. Mickey rolls a -1, however, for a rolled degree of Fair. Since this is one level lower than the Difficulty Level, he's having problems. Had Mickey done Poorly or even Mediocre, he would perhaps have fallen - or not even been able to start. Since his rolled degree is only slightly below the Difficulty Level, though, the GM simply rules he is stuck half way up, and can't figure out how to go on. Parri ties a rope to a tree at the top of the cliff, and lowers it for Mickey. The GM says it is now Difficulty Level: Poor to climb the cliff with the rope in place, and Mickey makes this easily on another roll.
Arnold would also need a Poor rolled degree to climb the cliff with the rope, but since his skill is Poor, they decide not to risk it. Mickey and Parri have Arnold loop the rope under his arms, and pull him up as he grabs handholds along the way in case they slip. No roll is needed in this case, unless they are suddenly attacked when Arnold is only half way up the cliff . . .
Occasionally, the GM will roll in secret for the PC. There are times
when even a failed roll would give the player knowledge he wouldn't
otherwise have. These are usually information rolls. For example, if
the GM asks the player to make a roll against Perception attribute (or
Find Hidden Things skill), and the player fails, the character doesn't
notice anything out of the ordinary. But the player now knows that
there is something out of the ordinary that his
character didn't notice . . . Far better for the GM to make the roll
in secret, and only mention it on a successful result.
4.5 Opposed Actions
To resolve an Opposed action between two characters, each side rolls two dice against the appropriate trait and announces the result. The traits rolled against are not necessarily the same: for example, a seduction attempt would be rolled against a Seduction skill for the active participant (or possibly Appearance attribute) and against Will for the resisting participant. There may be modifiers: someone with a vow of chastity might get a bonus of +2 to his Will, while someone with a Lecherous fault would have a penalty - or not even try to resist!
The Game Master compares the rolled degrees to determine a relative degree. For example, if Lisa is trying to flimflam Joe into thinking she's from the FBI, and rolls a Great result, this doesn't automatically mean she succeeds. If Joe also rolls a Great result on his trait to avoid being flimflammed (Knowledge of Police Procedure, Learning, Intelligence, etc. - whatever the GM decides is appropriate), then the relative degree is 0 - which means the status quo is maintained. In this case, Joe remains unconvinced that Lisa is legitimate. If Joe rolled a Superb result, Lisa's Great result would have actually earned her a relative degree of -1: Joe is not going to be fooled this encounter, and will probably even have a bad reaction to Lisa.
The Opposed action mechanism can be used to resolve almost any conflict between two characters. Are two people both grabbing the same item at the same time? This is an Opposed action based on some sort of Dexterity attribute - the winner gets the item. Is one character trying to shove another one down? Roll Strength vs. Strength (or Wrestling skill) to see who goes down. Someone trying to hide from a search party? Perception attribute (or Find Hidden skill) vs. Hide skill (or Camouflage, Stealth, etc.). Trying to outdrink a rival? Constitution vs. Constitution (or Drinking skill, Carousing, etc.). And so on.
Some Opposed actions have a minimum level needed for success. For example, an attempt to control a person's mind with a Telepathy skill might require at least a Fair result. If the telepath only gets a Mediocre result, it doesn't matter if the intended victim rolls a Poor resistance: the attempt fails. Most combat falls into this category - see the next section.
For an example of Opposed actions involving more than two characters, see Section 4.64, Multiple Combatants in Melee.
As an easy alternative for resolving Opposed actions, the GM can
simply roll 1d6 for an NPC. On a result of 2-5, the NPC gets the
listed trait level as a result. On a result of 1, the NPC did worse
than her trait level; on a result of 6 the NPC did better than her
trait level. (How much worse or better is left to the GM to fudge -
whatever is most timely for the story at this point! Or the GM can
simply roll another d6: 1,2,3 = +/-1, whichever is appropriate; 4,5 =
+/-2; 6 = +/-3.) This method assumes that an NPC will usually perform
at her appropriate trait level. While this is not strictly accurate,
it does emphasize the PCs' performance, and reduces the possibility of
an NPC's lucky roll deciding the game.
4.6 Combat
Combat is an Opposed action in FUDGE, unless one participant is unaware of an attack or decides to ignore it. The GM can handle it very loosely and quickly, as in the Subjective system below, or more elaborately, as in the Objective system following.
Melee combat usually occurs in simultaneous rounds: each fighter
attempts to defeat the other at the same time. Ranged combat (with
such weapons as bows, thrown spears, guns, or blast rifles) may be
handled as an Opposed action. Alternatively, the GM may determine
Initiative (perhaps by an Initiative attribute modified by
circumstances and a die roll) and have the opponents alternate taking
pot shots at each other. See Section 4.65, Objective
Ranged Combat.
4.61 Subjective Combat
Combat can be handled very subjectively in FUDGE. The GM should describe the situation in as much detail as is apparent, then ask the players what their characters are doing. Each player should describe what his character action's would be during this fight. The better the description, the better the GM will have an idea of how to assess the situation. This can be especially important if she has something that won't be revealed until the middle of a battle!
Once the GM has decided which trait (or traits) each PC should use for this combat, she then gives them a modifier, ranging from -3 to +3 at the worst or best. Zero should be the most common modifier. This is based partly on how well the PCs' plan would work, given what she knows of the NPCs, and partly on other situational modifiers: fatigue, lighting, footing, surprise, weapon superiority, bravery or cowardice of NPCs, wounds, etc.
The players should then each make three rolls against an appropriate trait. Average these results, rounding to the nearest whole number. (Example: a player has a Good Combat skill. He rolls a +2, -1, and +1. The sum of these three results is +2. Divided by 3, this equals 2/3, which rounds to +1: the character got a Great Combat result.) This is how the PC did in general during the combat, or at least the initial portion of it.
The GM may break the battle down into segments, or treat the whole encounter as one segment. This is largely dependent on the GM's style, the importance of the battle, the number of participants, whether or not there are unexpected surprises, etc. Each segment should be a dramatic unit. For example, perhaps the PCs are facing a detachment of guards at the door, while the evil mastermind is trying to activate the Doomsday machine at the back of the room. In this case, a logical breakdown might be two segments: the fight with the guards, and the confrontation with Dr. Doomsday. Whatever the number of segments, it is most exciting to keep the battle description as word-oriented as possible.
Example: Gunner, separated from the other PCs, surprises five members of a rival gang in a garage. The player announces that Gunner will shout and charge the rival mob, carrying his Tommy gun as if he's about to fire - they don't know it's jammed. He hopes to see them either run away, hit the dirt, or freeze in fear. He'll then use his Tommy gun as club, starting at the left end of their line. He'll keep his current opponent in between him and the others as long as possible. He hopes to then roll up their line, one at a time, keeping the wall to his left side as he charges.
The GM makes a Situational roll for the mob: Mediocre. They don't recover quickly from their surprise, so she gives Gunner a +1 to his Brawling skill of Good for this plan, and decides that one will run away, and the others won't draw their guns until he's already engaged the first enemy. His Running skill is Great, so she gives him another +1, since he can cover ground quickly. Total modifier for Gunner is +2, bringing his Brawling skill to Superb for this combat.
Gunner rolls 0, -3, and +1 for a total of -2. Divided by three, this becomes -2/3, which rounds to -1. This is a Great result for Gunner. The GM decides this is good enough to have downed the first two mobsters, and describes the battle so far in entertaining detail. One other ran away, but now Gunner is facing the last two, who finally have their pistols out and could probably plug him before he charges that far. The GM asks, "What does Gunner do now?"
The player, thinking quickly, decides Gunner will hurl the Tommy gun into the face of one gunman while making a low diving tackle for the other, hoping to dodge under the bullets. The GM calls for a single roll against Throwing to see how hurling the gun goes: Gunner gets a Fair result. This is enough to distract the gunman, but not put him out of action. Gunner's Acrobatics skill is only Fair, but since he wants to fight after he tackles, the GM allows him to use his Good Brawling skill for the combined action of diving and battling. She then requires three rolls against Brawling skill (Good) to see how he is at dodging bullets while diving at a foe's knees. Gunner gets a +2, 0, +1, which average to +1: a Great result. Gunner manages to tackle and subdue the gunman, whose shots all go wild.
At this point, Gunner's luck runs out: the GM rules that the mobster
hit by the Tommy gun now steps over and points his pistol to Gunner's
head while he's kneeling over the other mobster. Gunner wisely heeds
the call to surrender and hopes his friends can rescue him . . .
4.62 Objective Melee Combat
Objective Combat is usually handled as a series of Opposed actions, each taking place during a "combat round." In FUDGE, a combat round is an indeterminate length of time set by the GM - around 3 seconds seems reasonable to some people, while that might seem grossly short or absurdly long to others. A melee combat round combines offense and defense of both sides into one Opposed action roll (each participant rolling separately, and comparing results). A round can either be a stand-off, or there is one winner. (See the next section for an optional system in which both combatants can be hurt in a given round.)
Melee simply means any combat that is at close enough range to strike the opponent without letting go of a hand-held weapon.
The GM determines which traits the combatants should roll against. This depends largely on whether or not they are using a weapon, and what type. Each combatant makes an Opposed action roll, as above. A relative degree of zero means that the combat round is a stand-off - the fighters either circled each other looking for an opening, or exchanged blows on each other's shields, etc. At any rate, nobody is hurt.
The weapon used (which can be simply a fist) determines which trait a fighter uses to roll against, but otherwise does not affect the Opposed action roll in combat unless one fighter has a much bigger weapon than the other - see the modifiers, below. The type of the weapon also affects damage - see Section 4.7, Damage and Healing.
A minimum result of Poor is needed to hit a (roughly) equal-sized opponent. That is, a human needs to score a Poor blow (and still win the Opposed action) in order to hit another human. If both opponents roll worse than Poor, the round is a standoff. If one opponent is significantly bigger than the other, he needs a Mediocre or even Fair result to hit his smaller foe, while even a Terrible result will allow the small fighter to hit the larger. (Of course, such a blow must still win the Opposed action.) Extremely small targets, such as a pixie, may require a Good or even a Great result. Other examples include humans fighting giants, or very large or small animals.
If the result is a relative degree other than zero, and the minimum level needed to score a hit is achieved or surpassed, the winner checks to see if he hit hard enough to damage the loser. In general, the better the hit (the greater the relative degree), the more likelihood of damage.
Many times, combat will take more than one combat round. Characters are not limited to attacking each round - they may attempt to flee, negotiate, try a fancy acrobatic stunt, or any other appropriate action. If one combatant is unable to fight in a given round (possibly because he's unaware of the attacker, or because of a critical result in the previous round - see Section 4.8, Critical Results), the combat may become an Unopposed Action for the active fighter, usually with a Poor Difficulty Level. If a character can defend himself in some way, such as using a shield, it is still an Opposed Action, but the defending character cannot hurt the other character even if he wins the combat round.
Some situations call for one side or the other's trait level to be modified. Here are some examples:
This optional rule allows a little more tactical flavor to combat, at a small expense of complexity. This option replaces the All-out attack and defense options listed above, and allows for both combatants to be injured in the same combat round.
Before each round, a fighter may choose to be in an offensive posture or defensive posture. Such a stance will increase the appropriate combat skill by a certain amount in one aspect of combat (offense or defense), and decrease the same skill by an equal amount for the other aspect of combat. There are five basic options:
+2 to Offense, -2 to Defense
+1 to Offense, -1 to Defense
Normal Offense and Defense
-1 to Offense, +1 to Defense
-2 to Offense, +2 to Defense
Each combat round, a player secretly chooses either a positive die set to 1 or 2 (offensive posture), a negative die set to 1 or 2 (defensive posture), or both dice (normal posture). Both sides reveal their choices simultaneously by lifting their hands from the dice once chosen.
Each side then makes a single Opposed action roll as normal. The result is applied to both offense and defense, however, and will thus have different results for offense and defense if anything other than a normal posture is chosen. The offensive rolled result of each fighter is then compared to the defense of the other fighter.
For example, a fighter with Good sword skill chooses +1 to offense and -1 to defense for a particular combat round. (This is done by revealing only the positive die, with 1 showing on top, when the player's hand is taken away.) This means his offensive sword skill is at Great this round, while his defensive sword skill is at Fair. His opponent, a Great swordswoman, chooses normal posture - no separate offense and defense rating. The swordswoman rolls a -1: a Good result for both offense and defense. The swordsman rolls a 0 result: his offensive rolled result is Great, his defense is Fair.
His offense result of Great is compared with her Good defense: he wins
by +1. However, her offense result of Good is simultaneously compared
with his defense of Fair: she also wins the Opposed action by +1!
Both sides check for damage, to see if they got through each other's
armor - see the Objective Damage System, Section
4.72.
4.64 Multiple Combatants in Melee
Realistic Method: When more than one opponent attacks a single fighter, they have a positional advantage - at the very least. To reflect this, the lone fighter is at -1 to his skill for each additional foe beyond the first. The lone fighter rolls once, and the result is compared with each of the opponents' rolled degrees, one after the other. The solo combatant has to defeat all of the opponents in order to inflict a wound on one of them. The lone fighter can inflict damage on only one foe in any given round - his choice. But he takes multiple wounds in a single round if two or more enemies hit him!
Epic Campaign Method: In those games with heroic PCs facing hordes of enemies, the GM can reduce the penalty to -1 for each two opponents the character faces. Or, she can simply give the hordes Poor skills and Poor Damage Capacity (which is not out of character for a horde). It's also possible to allow a sweeping blow to damage more than one foe at a time. Of course, this slows a slash down: reduce damage done by 1 for each foe cut through.
Either Method: The GM may allow a PC who ties with one foe, but scores at least two rolled degrees better than another, to have hit the second foe and still defended himself. Example: Paco is facing three thugs, who have just rolled a Great, Good, and Mediocre result, respectively. Paco rolls a Great result, tying the best thug. The GM allows him to hit the thug who rolled a Mediocre result (since he's at +3 relative degree), but not be hit himself.
Of course, a well-armored fighter facing weak opponents can simply concentrate on one foe and let the others try to get through his armor (that is, not defend himself at all against some of his attackers). In this case, attacking characters need to succeed at Unopposed Mediocre Difficulty Level to hit the lone fighter who is ignoring them. (It is Mediocre, not Poor as in Section 4.62, Objective Melee Combat, because multiple fighters can interfere with each other.) This is historically accurate for knights wading through peasant levies, for example.
There's a limit to the number of foes that can attack a single opponent. Six is about the maximum under ideal conditions (such as wolves or spear-wielders attacking a solitary target), while only three or four can attack if using weapons or martial arts that require a lot of maneuvering space. If the lone fighter is in a doorway, only one or two fighters can reach him, at most.
When multiple NPCs beset a lone PC, the GM may wish to roll only once for all the NPCs, rather than having to roll for each combatant. The lone fighter is still at -1 per extra opponent, but the GM's single roll is moved one degree closer to zero. For example, if the GM gets a +4 result, each attacker actually scores a +3. A zero result remains a zero. Example: Three NPC pirates, complete with eye-patches, scars, earrings, sneers and generally bad attitudes, are attacking dashing PC hero Tucker. The pirates (whose names are Molly, Annie, and Maggie) are Fair, Good, and Mediocre, respectively, at combat skills. Tucker is a Superb swordsman, but is at -2 for having two extra fighters attacking him at once: his skill is Good for this combat. The GM wants to roll just once (applying the result to all three pirates) rather than rolling three times each combat round.
On the first round, she gets a +2. This becomes a +1 (moved closer to zero), and the pirates have just gotten Good, Great, and Fair results, respectively. If Tucker scores a Great result that round (equal to the best pirate result), the round is a stand-off (nobody takes wounds on either side - unless the GM is using the option detailed in the example with Paco, above). However, if Tucker scores a Superb result, he could hit the pirate of his choice and remain unhit. If poor Tucker rolls a Fair result, both Molly and Annie would hit him. The process is repeated each round.
Alternately, the GM could simply use the 1d6 method discussed in
Section 4.5, Opposed Actions.
4.65 Objective Ranged Combat
Ranged combat may or may not be an Opposed action:
If the target is unaware of the assault, the attacker makes an Unopposed action roll to see if he hits his target - the GM sets the Difficulty Level based on distance, lighting, cover, etc. Do not modify the attacker's skill for range, partial cover, or other circumstances - that's included in the Difficulty Level. Equipment such as a laser sighting scope can modify the attacker's skill, though.
If the defender is aware of the attack, however, it is an Opposed action: the attacker's ranged weapon skill against the defender's defensive trait. (A Difficulty Level for range, lighting, etc., is still set by the GM, and is the minimum rolled degree needed to hit.) A defensive roll should be made against a Dodge skill, or Agility attribute, or something similar.
If the ranged weapon is thrown, there is no modifier to the defense roll. However, a propelled weapon, such as a bow, gun, or beam weapon, is much harder to avoid. In this case, reduce the defender's trait by -2 or even -3.
Of course, the defender may decline to dodge, but shoot back instead. In this case, the action is Unopposed - making the Difficulty Level is all that is needed to hit. The GM may make such actions simultaneous. Example: Nevada Slim and the El Paso Hombre are facing off in a showdown. Both are in the open, in the sunlight, so there's no lighting or cover difficulty. The range is obviously the same for both - the GM rules it's a Fair task to hit each other. Slim rolls a Poor result, and the Hombre a Mediocre result. The Hombre's bullet came closer to Nevada Slim than vice versa, but both missed since neither made the Difficulty Level.
Another Example: Will Scarlet is shooting a longbow from the greenwood at Dicken, the Sheriff's man, who has a crossbow. Dicken knows Will is there, because the man next to him just keeled over with an arrow through his chest. Dicken is in the open, in good light, so only range is of any concern to Will Scarlet: the GM says even a Mediocre shot will hit since they are fairly close. The range for Dicken to hit Will is of course the same, but Will is partially hidden behind a log (cover), and just inside the foliage, so the lighting makes it hard to see him clearly. The GM decrees Dicken needs a Good roll to hit Will. Dicken rolls a Fair result, missing Will. Will rolls a Mediocre result, which hits Dicken, even though it wasn't as good a shot as Dicken's.
In both examples, the fighters forfeited their Dodges in order to shoot simultaneously. Each combatant simply needed to make the appropriate Difficulty Level to hit. Under these conditions, it's possible for both combatants to succeed in the same combat round. Had Dicken's shot hit, Will and Dicken would have skewered each other.
Guns and similar weapons that do not rely on muscle power should be
rated for damage at the beginning of the game. No detailed list is
provided, but as a rough guideline: The average small hand gun might
be of +2 to +3 Strength, while a derringer might be +1 or even +0.
Powerful two-handed projectile weapons will be +5 and higher, while
bazookas and other anti-tank weapons will be +10 and higher. Science
fiction small weapons might do as much damage as a modern bazooka - or
they might be designed to capture people without hurting them.
4.7 Damage and Healing
Two damage-tracking systems are presented here for use by the GM: Subjective Damage system and Objective Damage system. The Subjective system is simpler than the other, but less defined.
In each system, damage to a character can be described as being at one of six stages of severity. The stages are:
Of course, the GM may expand these stages, inserting other levels as needed. For example, instead of Hurt and Very Hurt, a GM might use Lightly Wounded, Wounded, Badly Wounded, Severely Wounded, etc.
The GM may allow a high Difficulty Level Will roll to reduce or even nullify penalties listed at Hurt, Very Hurt, and possibly even Incapacitated.
Some players take delight in describing their wounds in detail, even writing such scars into the character story!
Automatic Death: sometimes you don't have to roll the dice: holding a
knife to a helpless character's throat is a good example - no roll
needed to kill such a character, but your Karma suffers.
4.71 Subjective Damage System
When using FUDGE's Subjective Damage System, the GM considers all of the factors below (possibly writing them down, the better to weigh them), and then simply announces how hurt the defender is, using one of the stages listed above.
This system quantifies damage more than the other, and is quite mechanical. Damage consists of three parts: Basic Damage, the attacker's Offensive Damage Modifier, and the defender's Defensive Damage Modifier. (There is a fourth optional part: the damage roll.)
Thus:
Total Damage = Basic Damage + Offensive Damage Modifier - Defensive Damage Modifier (+ damage roll)
Basic Damage is the relative degree by which the winner hit the loser. Example: if Lisa rolls a Great combat result and Joe only a Fair result, Lisa has hit Joe for two points of Basic Damage.
The Offensive Damage Modifier is based on a number of factors, including strength, Scale and weapon. For ease of use, it should be calculated for each weapon at character creation and updated as necessary. The Offensive Damage Modifier consists of:
For Muscle-Powered Weapon:
Note: For a less lethal game, subtract 1 from each type of weapon except sharpness. (Note that this will lengthen combats.)
For Character's Strength (muscle-powered weapons only):
+3 for Superb Strength
+2 for Great Strength
+1 for Good Strength
+0 for Fair Strength
-1 for Mediocre Strength
-2 for Poor Strength
-3 for Terrible Strength
For Weapon's Strength (Guns, Crossbows, Beam weapons, etc.,): +/- Strength of weapon (see Section 4.65, Objective Ranged Combat).
For Attacker's Scale: Plus the attacker's Strength Scale (see Section 4.75).
Note: the attacker's Strength Scale is relevant only for muscle- powered weapons and for those projectile weapons scaled to the attacker's size, such as miniature bazookas or giant-sized handguns. A superhero of Scale 10 using an ordinary pistol would not figure his Scale into the Offensive Damage Modifier.
Example of Offensive Damage Modifier: Jeb the Dwarf is of Scale 1 (although short, he's solid as a rock), Great Strength (+2), and uses a one-handed axe of +3 damage. On his character sheet, Jeb would have: "One-handed Axe, +3 damage (Off.Dam.Mod.: +6)."
The Defensive Damage Modifier is based on armor and Scale (Mass) and should likewise be calculated at character creation and updated as the character's armor changes. The Defensive Damage Modifier consists of:
For Armor:
+1 or +2 for a good shield (add to other armor modifiers).Note: a +2 shield is very large and cumbersome to carry.
+1 for light, pliable non-metal armor.
+2 for heavy, rigid non-metal armor
+2 for light metal armor.
+3 for medium metal armor.
+4 for heavy metal armor.
+5 or more for science fiction advanced armor.
For Defender's Mass Scale: Plus the defender's Mass Scale (see Section 4.75). (If the defender has Mass other than Fair, or a gift of Tough Hide, it should also be figured in.)
Example of Defensive Damage Modifier: Jeb the Dwarf is of Scale +1, and wears heavy non-metal armor (+2) and carries a regular shield (+1). On the character sheet, the player would list: "Shield: +1; Hvy non-metal armor: +2 (Def.Dam.Mod: +3 w/out shield; +4 w/shield)."
Optional Damage Roll:
Although the damage roll is optional, it is recommended. For one thing, it allows a character with a high Offensive Damage Modifier merely to graze an opponent, something the Objective Damage system doesn't account for otherwise. Further, it gives a tiny fighter a chance to damage a large opponent - a small chance, true, but that's better than no chance.
First, make all calculations above; the damage at this point is called the calculated damage. The attacker then makes a Situational damage roll, which is not based on any trait. The result, which will range from -4 to +4, is applied to the calculated damage to produce the final damage. Negative final damage is treated as zero damage.
There are three limitations to the damage roll:
Second Example: The calculated damage is +2. A damage roll of +2 to +4 results in final damage of four points, since calculated damage cannot be more than doubled by a damage roll. A damage roll of +1 results in final damage of three points, while a damage roll of 0 results in two points of final damage. Any negative die roll results in one point of final damage, since a positive calculated damage cannot be reduced below one by a damage roll.
For simplicity, of course, the GM can simply ignore the limitations, and allow the damage roll to be anywhere from -4 to +4, let the chips fall where they may . . .
Grazing:
A simple way to represent grazes in combat is to say that any Basic Damage of +1 (Opposed action won by 1) can do at most 1 point of damage, plus any Scale difference. (It may do zero points, of course, depending on the opponent's Defensive Damage Modifier.) This grazing could be a maximum of two points (plus difference in Scale), if the GM desired. Or the Scale difference could be halved in this case, meaning a giant's club could still give a human a glancing blow that would probably Hurt, but not necessarily Incapacitate.
Recording wounds:
Once the final damage is determined, it is recorded on the wounded fighter's character sheet. The Scratched, Hurt, Very Hurt, etc., system introduced in Section 4.7, Damage and Healing, is used. However, each point of damage does not necessarily mean the wounded character loses the same number of steps. Instead, the different levels of Damage Capacity take hits as follows:
Scratch Hurt Very Hurt Incapacitated Near Death
Terrible 1 1 1 1 2
Poor 2 1 1 2 2
Mediocre 2 2 1 2 2
Fair 2 2 2 2 2
Good 3 2 2 3 2
Great 3 3 2 3 2
Superb 3 3 3 3 2
Legendary 4 3 3 4 2
Wounds are cumulative. That is, the first two points of damage to a character with Fair Damage Capacity count as Scratches, and the next hit will Hurt the character. The fifth point of damage will make the character Very Hurt, and so on, until the eleventh point of damage, which will kill the character. If this character has taken four points of damage total, he is still only at -1 to his actions for being Hurt; he is not at -2 until the next point of damage, which will make him Very Hurt.
The player should write the character's wound progression on the character sheet at character creation if using the Objective Damage System.
The wound progression above makes for a fairly realistic campaign.
For a more cinematic campaign (especially those without magic or
science fiction healing), add an extra Scratch (and maybe even Hurt)
to each level. It wouldn't be out of line, for an epic scale game, to
add 2 levels of Scratch and Hurt to each PC. This would mean little
blows wouldn't accumulate so quickly to hinder the character.
4.73 Damage Threshold
A "damage threshold" is a limit to the number of wound steps a character can take in one blow. This is an optional rule, recommended for campaigns that are even the least bit heroic. A damage threshold prevents accidental PC death, which (in most campaigns) shouldn't occur through a bad die roll, but only if the character's actions were truly self-sacrificing or stupid enough to warrant death. The damage threshold concept can be implemented in different ways.
One method is simply to rule that an average character cannot take more than three levels of wounds in one blow in ordinary combat. For example, an unwounded character could be Scratched, Hurt, or Very Hurt in one blow, but any excess damage points beyond that would be lost. A Hurt character could go all the way to Near Death in one blow, but not be killed outright.
The GM might tailor the damage threshold to Damage Capacity. For example, characters of Great or Superb Damage Capacity might take only two levels of wounds in one blow. (That is, an unwounded character of Superb Damage Capacity can only be Scratched or Hurt, not Very Hurt, in his first wound.) Likewise, characters of Terrible and Poor Damage Capacity might be able to go through four wound levels in one blow.
Another way to handle a damage threshold is to say that a character cannot be rendered Incapacitated unless he began that combat round Very Hurt. This type of threshold could be between Incapacitated and Near Death, instead - or both, if desired! This is simpler to keep track of than the other system, but even less realistic. But, then, the whole concept of a damage threshold isn't realistic: it's to make the PCs more heroic than real life.
The "automatic death" rule in Section 4.7, Damage and Healing, takes precedence over damage thresholds. Note that "automatic death" can be defined by the GM to include such things as being hit solidly by a giant, which doesn't really fall under the category of "ordinary combat." Being shot by a large firearm actually can be considered ordinary combat, but might be exempt from the damage threshold rule, anyway.
An indulgent GM who isn't concerned with realism can use damage thresholds for PCs but ignore them for NPCs.
Perhaps the simplest and best way to prevent unnecessary PC death is
to allow a player to spend a Fudge Point
(Section 2.36) to convert a
deadly wound to a merely serious one.
4.74 Combat and Objective Damage Example
This example uses the Objective Damage system, including the optional damage roll.
The two opponents are Medieval warriors, Snorri and Brynhild. The fight takes place in a barroom, which quickly emptied of other occupants once weapons were drawn. No one noticed that the innkeeper's son had actually left much earlier than this, when the belligerent Snorri was merely exchanging insults with the proud Brynhild. Both fighters are human (Scale 0), so Scale is left out of the discussion.
Snorri:
Strength: Good (+1)
Weapon: Magic Sword (+2 for size, +1 for Sharpness, +1 for Magic = +4)
Sword skill: Great
Damage Capacity: Good
Armor: Heavy Leather (+2), no shield
Offensive Damage Modifier: +5
Defensive Damage Modifier: +2 Brynhild:
Strength: Great (+2)
Weapon: Axe (+2 for size, +1 for Sharpness = +3)
Axe skill: Good
Damage Capacity: Fair
Armor: Heavy Leather (+2)
Shield: Normal (+1)
Offensive Damage Modifier: (+5)
Defensive Damage Modifier: (+3)
In the first round, Snorri gets a Great result on his weapon skill, and Brynhild gets a Fair result. Snorri wins with a relative degree of +2, which equals the Basic Damage. Next, Snorri's Offensive Damage Modifier of +5 is added in, bringing the damage to +7. Now the GM subtracts Brynhild's Defensive Damage Modifier of +3, bringing the calculated damage down to +4.
The GM is requiring damage rolls, so Snorri's player rolls the dice: a -4 result, the worst he could have gotten! This would bring the damage down to 0, but there is a limitation that prevents positive calculated damage to be reduced below one, so Snorri does one point of damage to Brynhild.
Since her Damage Capacity is Fair, Brynhild can take two points of damage and still be only Scratched. The GM marks one point of Scratch, and the next round is fought.
In the second round, both combatants get Good results - a standoff. The GM describes it as a give-and-take of blows that are all parried or blocked as the fighters circle each other.
In the third round, Snorri gets a Great result and Brynhild only a Good result - Snorri has hit again! Basic Damage = 1, his Offensive Damage Modifier of +5 brings damage up to 6, and Brynhild's Defensive Damage Modifier of +3 brings the calculated damage to +3. Snorri's player rolls the dice, this time getting a +1 result: he scores four points of damage to Brynhild!
The GM marks off four points of damage on Brynhild's character sheet: one uses up the last Scratch, the next two use up both Hurt points, and the last damage point is marked against Very Hurt. Brynhild is now Very Hurt, and her skill is at -2: she's fighting as if she were Mediocre now.
In the fourth round, Snorri decides to finish off the wounded Brynhild in one blow: he all-out attacks, which gives him a +1 to his skill, and a +1 to damage if he wins. Brynhild had decided to try for a situational advantage, though: she's spending this round in all-out defense, hoping to spot some way to get an advantage over Snorri for the fifth round. Brynhild gets +2 to her skill this turn, but can't hurt Snorri if she wins. Snorri gets a Great result, even with his +1 for all-out attacking, and Brynhild also gets a Great result! Snorri would ordinarily have lost the combat round (all-out attackers lose tie results), but Brynhild's all-out defense means she doesn't aim any blows at Snorri, just beats his attack down.
In the fifth round, the GM gives Brynhild a much-needed +1 for having
spotted a spilled drink on the barroom floor. Since she didn't lose
the previous round, she managed to maneuver Snorri so that he's in the
puddle: he's at -1 to skill this round (down to Good). Snorri takes
an ordinary combat round, and Brynhild, wounded and desperate, now
tries an all-out attack herself: +1 to her skill, bringing her up to
an effective skill of Fair from her wounded Mediocre state. Brynhild
rolls a Great result, and Snorri only gets a Good result: Brynhild
wins this round.
Since she was doing an all-out attack, she gets a bonus of +1 to damage. The Basic Damage is therefore 2, which becomes 7 when her Offensive Damage Modifier is added in. Snorri's Defensive Damage Modifier is +2, so calculated damage is 5. The GM makes a damage roll of +0, so Snorri takes five points of damage. Since his Damage Capacity is Good, this means three of the damage points are Scratches, and the final two are Hurt wounds. Snorri is now Hurt: -1 until healed.
The combat is interrupted at this point by the town guards, who had
been quickly alerted by the innkeeper's son. Snorri and Brynhild are
hauled off to separate cells, probably only too glad to get out of
what had become a deadly duel . . .
4.75 Non-human Scale in Combat
Combat between creatures of different Scale (Mass/Strength Scale) is very straightforward. Because weapons and armor are scaled along with the wielder's Strength, no difficult computation is needed.
Basically, the attacker's Strength Scale is figured into his Offensive Damage Modifier, and the defender's Mass Scale is figured into her Defensive Damage Modifier. Once the basic damage has been determined normally, the attacker's Offensive Damage Modifier is added to his damage, and the defender's Defensive Damage Modifier is subtracted from the final damage. If you have combat with beings weaker than humans, remember what you learned in school about adding and subtracting negative numbers . . .
That's all there is to it. As per normal FUDGE damage rules, armor decreases the damage done while weapon size and deadliness may increase the damage done. Hits become Scratches, Hurt, etc., as usual see Section 4.7, Damage and Healing.
However, a very small character is not likely to be able to wound a large one in this system. The GM may allow a point or two of damage to penetrate if the small character gets a critical success. Poison- tipped arrows and lances are also a possibility: the small character can aim for joints in the armor and merely has to break the skin to inject the poison.
Also, this system treats Scale like armor, which isn't quite accurate. In reality, a small opponent may be slowly carving the larger fighter up, but each wound is too petty, relative to the large scale, to do much damage by itself. To reflect a lot of small wounds gradually inflicting a hit on a large-scale foe, let each hit that is just barely stopped by Scale count as half a hit. "Just barely" depends on the Scale difference, of course. For Scale 1, there isn't any half hit stage, while Scale 10 difference might mean having six or more hits stopped by scale.
Another way to represent this is to allow a damage roll when Scale prevents a hit from doing any damage. See Section 4.72, Objective Damage System, for damage rolls.
There are also "scale piercing" weapons, such as whale harpoons and elephant guns. These don't have massive damage numbers: instead, if they hit well, simply halve the Scale value, or ignore it all together. Of course, if such a weapon is used on a human, it would indeed have a massive damage modifier . . .
Objective Damage System Combat Examples: In the following examples, Strength and Mass are at the same Scale. Also, it is assumed the GM is not using the optional damage roll, which could vary damage in all three combat rounds discussed.
First example:
Wilbur, a human knight with a sword, is attacking a dragon. Wilbur's Offensive Damage Modifier is a respectable +6:Great Strength: +2The dragon's Defensive Damage Modifier is +8:
Two-handed sword: +4 (+3 for size, +1 for sharpness)
Scale: +0.
Scale: +6
Tough hide: +2.
If Wilbur hits the dragon with a relative degree of +3, he does 3+6 = 9 points of damage. This would be a very severe blow to a human (even one wearing armor), but this is no human opponent. Only one hit gets through after subtracting the dragon's Defensive Damage Modifier of 8. The GM checks off a Scratch for the dragon, and the fight continues. Since the dragon has Fair Damage Capacity (she can take two Scratches), Wilbur will have to do this twice more before he finally Hurts the dragon. He may need help, or have to go back for his magic sword!
Second example:
Sheba, a human warrior, has just kicked McMurtree, a wee leprechaun. Sheba's Offensive Damage Modifier = +1:Fair Strength: +0McMurtree's Defensive Damage Modifier is -3:
Great Unarmed Combat Skill: +1
Scale: +0.
Light Leather Armor: +1
Scale: -4.
If Sheba wins the first combat round with a relative degree of +1 she adds in her Offensive Damage Modifier of +1 for a total damage so far of +2. However, McMurtree's Defensive Damage Modifier equals -3, which is subtracted from the damage. Subtracting a negative number means you actually add an equal but positive amount: 2+3 = 5 points of damage. Since he has Fair Damage Capacity, he takes 2 Scratch hits, 2 Hurt hits and 1 Very Hurt hit - he's at -2 for the next combat round, and in grave danger if she hits again.
Third example:
McMurtree's friend, Fionn, now swings his shillelagh (oak root club) at Sheba's knee. Fionn's Offensive Damage Modifier is -1:Good Strength: +1Sheba's Defensive Damage Modifier is +2:
Shillelagh: +2 (medium sized relative to Fionn, not sharp)
Scale: -4.
Heavy Leather Armor: +2
Scale: +0.
If Fionn wins by +3, he adds in his Offensive Damage Modifier of -1, which brings the damage down to a total so far of +2. Unfortunately for Fionn, this equals Sheba's Defensive Damage Modifier exactly, so she takes no damage from an excellently placed hit!
Fionn had better think of some other strategy, quickly. Fortunately for Fionn, he knows some magic, and if he can dodge just one kick from Sheba, she'll learn the hard way why it's best not to antagonize the Wee folk . . .
4.76 Pulling Punches & Knockout Damage
In either the Objective or Subjective Damage system, a player can have his character do reduced damage in any given attack. This commonly occurs in duels of honor, where it is only necessary to draw "first blood" to win, and killing your opponent can get you charged with murder. This is known as "pulling your punch," even if you are using a sword.
To pull your punch, simply announce the maximum damage level you will do if you are successful. A fencer can say he is going for one point of damage, for example. In this case, even if he wins the Opposed action by +8, and adds in +3 for his sword, he only does one point of damage: he was just trying to nick his foe. In the Subjective Damage system, a player might decide he just wanted to Scratch the opponent.
Likewise, a player can announce that his character is going for knock-out damage rather than killing damage. In this case, Hurt and Very Hurt simply count as additional Scratch levels. It takes an Incapacitated result to knock a character out, but there is no penalty for being Hurt or Very Hurt on the way. A knocked-out character doesn't need healing to recuperate to full health - just time. (Only a very severe GM would roll for the possibility of brain damage - this is fiction, not reality!)
The GM may simply decide that a successful Good blow (or better) to
the head knocks someone out automatically. In an Opposed action, the
Good blow would also have to win the combat, of course.
4.77 Healing
Healing is done through a medical skill or supernormal power. A Scratch is too insignificant to require a roll on a healing skill (although it might require a kiss to make it better . . .). A Good result on a healing skill heals all Hurt wounds; a Great result heals all Very Hurt (as well as Hurt) wounds, and a Superb result heals an Incapacitated character.
Otherwise, wounds heal on their own at one wound level per week of rest. That is, after a week of rest, an Incapacitated character becomes Very Hurt, etc. (The GM sets the healing rate of Scratches. They may disappear automatically once you are out of combat time, or they may linger on for a day or two.) The GM may also require a successful roll against some sort of Constitution attribute: Fair Difficulty Level for Hurt, Good Difficulty Level for Very Hurt, and Great Difficulty Level for Incapacitated. Failing this roll slows the healing process. Someone Near Death should take a long time to heal, even with magical or high tech healing.
Healing with realistic medical skills takes time: the success of the
roll merely insures the wounds will heal, given
enough rest. How long this takes depends on the technological level
of the game setting, and is up to the GM. (A day per treated wound is
extremely fast healing, but may be appropriate in an epic-style game.
Likewise, one minute per magically healed wound is very fast.)
Whether or not strenuous activity before the healing period ends
reopens a wound is also left up to the GM . . .
4.8 Critical Results
Critical results are an optional FUDGE rule for GMs who like the idea. A natural rolled result of +4 can be considered a critical success - the character has done exceptionally well, and the GM may grant some special bonus to the action. Likewise, a natural result of -4 is a critical failure, and the character has done as poorly as he possibly can in the given situation.
Note that achieving +/-4 with die modifiers does not count as a critical result, though the character has done exceptionally well or poorly. When a natural critical result is rolled, the GM may ignore what the rolled degree would be, and treat it as an automatic beyond Superb or below Terrible result.
Optionally, if a character gets a rolled degree four or more levels better than the Difficulty Level, he has gotten a critical success. Likewise, four levels below a Difficulty Level is a critical failure.
A critical result in combat can mean many things: one fighter falls down, or drops his weapon, or is hurt extra badly, or is stunned for a round and can't even defend himself, or is temporarily blinded, or knocked out, etc. The GM should be creative, but not kill a character outright!
The GM may even wish to make a table, such as these sample melee critical results:
Roll 2d6:
2 Blinded for the next combat round - no defense or offense!
3 Fall down: skill at -2 for one round.
4 Armor badly damaged - no armor value rest of fight!
5 Weapon finds chink in armor - do not subtract for armor.
6 Off balance - skill at -1 next turn.
7 Drop Weapon.
8 Weapon breaks, but still useful: -1 to damage.
9 . . .
And so on - finish and customize to your tastes.
This is an easy way to achieve a lot of detail without complicating
FUDGE. Those with Internet access are invited to add any interesting
critical results tables they create to the FUDGE sites!
4.9 NPC Reactions
Sometimes a non-player character has a set reaction to the PCs. Perhaps she's automatically their enemy, or perhaps the party has rescued her, and earned her gratitude. But there will be many NPCs that don't have a set reaction. When the PCs request information or aid, it might go smoothly or it might not go well at all. Negotiation with a stranger is always an unknown quantity to the players - it may be so for the GM, too!
When in doubt, the GM should secretly make a Situational roll. If the PC in question has a trait that might affect a stranger's reaction, this should be grant a +/-1 (or more) to the result. Examples include Appearance (which could be an attribute, gift or fault), Charisma, Reputation, Status, and such habits as nose-picking or vulgar language. The Reaction roll can also be modified up or down by circumstances: bribes, suspicious or friendly nature of the NPC, proximity of the NPC's boss, observed PC behavior, etc.
The higher the Reaction roll result, the better the reaction. On a
Fair result, for example, the NPC will be mildly helpful, but only if
it's not too much effort. She won't be helpful at all on Mediocre or
worse results, but will react well on a Good result or better.
Example: Nathaniel needs some information about the local duke, who he
suspects is corrupt. He has observed that folks are reticent to talk
about the duke to strangers. Nathaniel decides to approach a
talkative vegetable seller at the open market. Nathaniel has an
average appearance (no modifier), but is charismatic: +1 to any
Reaction roll. He makes small talk for a while, then slowly brings
the duke into the conversation. The GM decides this was done
skillfully enough to warrant another +1 on the reaction roll.
However, the situation is prickly: -2 in general to elicit any
information about the sinister local ruler. This cancels Nathaniel's
bonuses. The GM rolls in secret, and gets a Fair result. The old
lady slips out a bit of useful information before realizing what she's
just said. At that point she clams up, but Nathaniel casually changes
the subject to the weather, dispelling her suspicions. He wanders off
to try his luck elsewhere.
5 Character Development
After playing a bit, perhaps each session, the player will want the
character to grow in abilities. At this point, initial GM-set skill
limits (such as one Superb, three Greats) can be exceeded as the
character naturally develops. There are two ways to handle character
development, or "experience," as it's often called.
5.1 Subjective Character Development
When the player feels the character has accomplished enough to warrant improving in some trait (and he feels he's been roleplaying well), he petitions the GM for permission to raise it. A trait can only be raised one level at a time. A trait must be used more to raise it from Good to Great than Fair to Good, and so on. Also, skill traits should be much easier to raise than attributes.
Likewise, the GM can simply award an improvement in a trait she feels
deserves to be raised. In these cases, there is never a corresponding
reduction of another trait - this is character development, not
creation.
5.2 Objective Character Development
In the Objective Character Development system, the GM can award experience points (EP), which the player can trade in any way he wants at the following rates:
However, a trait can only be raised one level at a time.
The GM may adjust these point levels as she sees fit, of course, and should require that the traits being raised are those that were used significantly during an adventure.
As a guideline, good roleplaying should be rewarded with 1 to 3 EP per gaming session, with an upper suggested limit of 4 EP for flawless roleplaying. Players may save EP as long as they wish.
Attribute levels may or may not have effect on EPs put into skills. For simplicity, you can ignore attribute levels entirely when raising skill levels. As an interesting way to keep the game more realistic, however, consider the following options:
High attributes: if a character has an exceptionally high attribute that would logically affect a skill, then the GM may shift the EP costs (on the table above) one level cheaper. For example, raising Juggling from Fair to Good costs 2 EP for most characters, and raising it from Good to Great costs 4 EP. If a character has Great or Superb Dexterity, however, it would only cost 1 EP to raise Juggling from Fair to Good, and 2 EP to raise it from Good to Great using this option.
Low attributes: conversely, an appropriate attribute of Terrible or Poor would shift the costs one level the other direction. Raising Juggling skill from Mediocre to Fair would cost 2 EP if the character's Dexterity attribute were Terrible, for example. For an extreme treatment of this (involving a skill controlling a Supernormal Power), see Moose the Mage, Section 6.313, Character Examples.
This system is strictly for character development, and is not recommended for character creation. If the GM decides to use it, however, she should warn the players at the time of character creation so they can plan their characters' attributes accordingly.
A simpler way to handle this is to charge double EP costs (or multiply
EP costs by 1.5, round up) when a skill is raised
above an appropriate attribute. For example, Josco
the Jester has Good Dexterity. EP costs for raising Juggling skill
are normal until he tries to raise Juggling to Great, which is higher
than his Dexterity. At that point, he must pay double cost: 8 EP.
(Or 6 EP, if using the x1.5 formula.) This can quickly become very
expensive in terms of EP, however, especially if the GM hasn't allowed
many free attribute levels. It is not recommended in
epic style campaigns, especially those with Legendary levels! Again,
this would have nothing to do with skill level costs at character
creation, only EP costs.
5.3 Development through Training
Improving skills through EP is not always realistic, to be honest. A gaming session might only cover a few hours of campaign time. Allowing a character to improve one or two different skills from Fair to Good in that time is far-fetched, to say the least. But it's fun for the players, and psychologically satisfying, and so recommended.
As an alternative, or in addition to the methods described above, the GM may allow traits to be raised through appropriate amounts of training time. This would require finding a teacher (which would cost money) or taking an appropriate job (which may not be totally dedicated the skill you wish to learn, and so take longer). It's also possible to learn something on your own, but the GM should double the time required. If using the Objective Character Development system, the GM may (or may not) require that EPs be spent in this manner - that is, you can't spend EPs unless you also take the time to train.
The GM will have to set training time and costs, and difficulty of finding a teacher. The teacher has two skills that must be considered: Teaching skill, and the appropriate skill being taught. She should also require a number of rolls from the player to see how diligently the character learned the skill. These rolls should be on an attribute such as Willpower, Drive, Zeal, Wisdom, Self Discipline, Self Motivation, Psyche, Intelligence, etc. If the player can give a valid reason why the character is extremely motivated to learn this skill, the GM may grant up to +2 to the trait tested. Not every roll has to match whatever level the GM has set for success, but over half of them should. Example: Billy Blaster, space cadet, is back at the Academy after his first tour of duty. He decides his Fair Laser pistol skill is not as good as it needs to be. He takes a ten-week training course in Laser pistol use, taught by an instructor of Great Laser skill and Superb Teaching skill. (Since Billy has Gift: Employed by Space Patrol, this is free training for him.) The GM decides that Billy's player needs to make five Willpower rolls to see how dedicated he is to studying. If most of the rolls are Mediocre or better, Billy can raise his Laser pistol skill from Fair to Good, given the length of training and quality of the instructor. Had the training been shorter, or the instructor worse, he would have needed a preponderance of Fair or even Good rolls to have successfully raised his Laser pistol skill.
If using this system, remember that it is much easier to improve a skill from Poor to Mediocre than from Great to Superb. Require more time, or higher Difficulty Levels on the Will rolls to raise an already high skill.