Fudge vs. GURPS

[Sonny Maou]

This is my opinion of FUDGE. I looked into it because of its "freeness."
This is the opinion of a FUDGE novice, having had no previous experience
with it. Positive votes are preceded by a +. Negative by -.

+ I like the idea of "Median Rolls," and will incorporate that into my GURPS
games. I will also add "Best of 3" and "Worst of 3" rolls.
- GMs like me don't often have enough time to customize FUDGE to the extent
as would be required to get a campaign up and running, much less create the
game world itself. Like it says (p. 5), FUDGE is for the advanced GM with
plenty of time on his hands. (Okay, I added the "with plenty of time"
part...)
- FUDGE only has 7 levels of scoring. I prefer a system that allows for more
variety. GURPS provides for 15+ levels (3 to 18+) per attribute. As I
thought about it, I concluded I'd prefer a 100-level variance (I think TSR's
Top Secret had this, with the 100-sided dice... remember that?! :) ) to best
represent the game world (ST 44, IQ 63, Fine DX 37, Agility 58, etc...)
- To me, GURPS is a solid skeletal structure on which to develop my games.
FUDGE is just a big blob that requires me to provide the skeletal structure.
It's easier for me to go the GURPS way... that is, it's easier to customize
GURPS.
- FUDGE words are too abstract. I'd rather assign words to a concrete result
(-2, you were "lightly wounded") and truly understand how close to scarring
they came or how close to death they are than work it in reverse: "you were
lightly wounded, and combined with your previous light would and serious
wound before that... uh... who knows?!"
- FUDGE is not so much a "system" as it is a "system template." This
requires more time than I've got to spare.
- FUDGE has no standard, so supplements might well be unusable without
modification. PCs from the campaign across town (or even next door) will no
doubt need to be retrofitted when imported to your campaign.
+ FUDGE is free.
- FUDGE uses FUDGE dice, a non-standard set of cubes. 3d6 is superior for
its far greater range of results.

These are just a few comments on the brief look I had at FUDGE. I was not
convinced that investing more time in exploring FUDGE would be worth my
limited resources. No doubt many GMs with limited time on their hands will
feel the same. I would appreciate hearing your views on the matter, not in
the spirit of knocking FUDGE or GURPS, but to help enhance the
knowledgebase.

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by Sonny Maou
This is my opinion of FUDGE. I looked into it because of its "freeness."
This is the opinion of a FUDGE novice, having had no previous experience
with it. Positive votes are preceded by a +. Negative by -.

This is a pretty good review, over all. I do have a few points to comment
on.

Post by Sonny Maou
- GMs like me don't often have enough time to customize FUDGE to the extent
as would be required to get a campaign up and running, much less create the
game world itself. Like it says (p. 5), FUDGE is for the advanced GM with
plenty of time on his hands. (Okay, I added the "with plenty of time"
part...)

This is only true to a limited extent. While you'll have to do a little
work at the start, the sheer ease of making Fudge characters will quickly
make up for it. If you're running GURPS, unless you only use premade
adventures (in which case you won't be playing very long!), you'll take
more time making up NPCs and detailing magic items or vehicles than you
ever would in Fudge.

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE only has 7 levels of scoring. I prefer a system that allows for more
variety. GURPS provides for 15+ levels (3 to 18+) per attribute. As I
thought about it, I concluded I'd prefer a 100-level variance (I think TSR's
Top Secret had this, with the 100-sided dice... remember that?! :) ) to best
represent the game world (ST 44, IQ 63, Fine DX 37, Agility 58, etc...)

While GURPS does technically have more levels, how often do you see PCs
with stats outside the 8-15 range? (with the exception of GURPS Supers)
That said, Fudge is definitely more coarse-grained than GURPS.

Post by Sonny Maou
- To me, GURPS is a solid skeletal structure on which to develop my games.
FUDGE is just a big blob that requires me to provide the skeletal structure.
It's easier for me to go the GURPS way... that is, it's easier to customize
GURPS.

That looks like a personal opinion one -- I could go either way on this
myself. More of the work is already done for you in GURPS, but there's
less work that needs to be done for Fudge.

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE words are too abstract. I'd rather assign words to a concrete result
(-2, you were "lightly wounded") and truly understand how close to scarring
they came or how close to death they are than work it in reverse: "you were
lightly wounded, and combined with your previous light would and serious
wound before that... uh... who knows?!"

Again, that's a personal choice thing.

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE has no standard, so supplements might well be unusable without
modification. PCs from the campaign across town (or even next door) will no
doubt need to be retrofitted when imported to your campaign.

This is true, assuming you insist on all PCs having the same attributes
(which I probably would, actually).

Post by Sonny Maou
+ FUDGE is free.

So is GURPS Lite.

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE uses FUDGE dice, a non-standard set of cubes. 3d6 is superior for
its far greater range of results.

While Fudge dice are great, they are indeed a pain to find. There are
handy charts in the rules that let you used 3d6 or d% to get results from
+4 to -4 -- the odds aren't _exactly_ the same, but certainly close enough
for a game called Fudge.

Post by Sonny Maou
These are just a few comments on the brief look I had at FUDGE. I was not
convinced that investing more time in exploring FUDGE would be worth my
limited resources. No doubt many GMs with limited time on their hands will
feel the same.

Having actually gamed with Fudge, I find it to be much quicker than GURPS.
The less detailed combat rules (unless you want to add extra detail) and
the ease of creating characters actually save a lot of time. That time
could then be used to detail the setting and background and come up with
adventures.

I'm still torn between the two games myself -- sometimes I want to play
Fudge (like in my online Fudge Supers game at
http://www.phoenyx.net/alienlight ), sometimes GURPS (and sometimes Hero
or Risus, too).

GURPS also has _way_ more supplements and premade settings, probably a lot
more players, too. That said, you could use almost any of the GURPS
supplements with Fudge, and supplements cost money and take time to read.

[Sonny Maou]

"Chuk Goodin" wrote...

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
- GMs like me don't often have enough time to customize FUDGE to the extent
as would be required to get a campaign up and running, much less create the
game world itself.

This is only true to a limited extent. While you'll have to do a little
work at the start, the sheer ease of making Fudge characters will quickly
make up for it. If you're running GURPS, unless you only use premade
adventures (in which case you won't be playing very long!), you'll take
more time making up NPCs and detailing magic items or vehicles than you
ever would in Fudge.

In Fudge, you have to determine all the attributes you're going to use. Then
you have to determine the skills list. I've got all that pre-made in GURPS.

For character creation by players, you might have a point. I did not compare
the character creation procedures.

For GMs, why would "making up NPCs" and "detailing magic items or vehicles"
take more time in GURPS than in FUDGE, especially if you make use of
worldbooks?

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
- To me, GURPS is a solid skeletal structure on which to develop my games.
FUDGE is just a big blob that requires me to provide the skeletal structure.
It's easier for me to go the GURPS way... that is, it's easier to customize
GURPS.

That looks like a personal opinion one -- I could go either way on this
myself. More of the work is already done for you in GURPS, but there's
less work that needs to be done for Fudge.

I should have said something like, "It's easier to set up a campaign in
GURPS than in FUDGE." It comes down to having the game mechanics (structure)
in place: GURPS gives me an attributes list, a skills list, Adv/Disadv
adjustments, etc., all neatly coordinated and relative. I can get a
gameworld and some NPCs from a worldbook. With FUDGE, I first have to choose
what attributes I'm going to use in the campaign, then an applicable skills
list. For NPCs, I would probably have to convert from another system or make
up my own. I'm sure there are "worldbooks" out there for FUDGE, though...

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE words are too abstract. I'd rather assign words to a concrete result
(-2, you were "lightly wounded") and truly understand how close to scarring
they came or how close to death they are than work it in reverse: "you were
lightly wounded, and combined with your previous light would and serious
wound before that... uh... who knows?!"

Again, that's a personal choice thing.

I think the hit points are crucial, and much better for narrative...

GM: The arrow sticks with a thud into your thigh.
Player: Oy, vey!!!
GM: <rolling behind GM screen: 4 pts of damage> It really hurts.
Player: Ai, caramba!!! It's in the bone! It's in the bone!
GM: <noting player has only 2 hit points left> You are feeling pretty weak.
Player: Homina homina!!!

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE has no standard, so supplements might well be unusable without
modification. PCs from the campaign across town (or even next door) will no
doubt need to be retrofitted when imported to your campaign.

This is true, assuming you insist on all PCs having the same attributes
(which I probably would, actually).

You'd have to... there's no way around that. Imagine for two groups who use
FUDGE, Group A uses IQ, and Group B uses Intuition, Perception, Common
Sense, and Knowledge. Group A's skillset will be solely based on IQ, whereas
Group B has no doubt created its own skill set using all four intelligence
attributes. How do you bring one character from one group to the other?
Don't even think of merging the two groups. Obviously, in these extreme
cases, it's best probably to just let the newcomer create a new character.
But that's the point... characters can't come and go. It's not "universal,"
like GURPS, where my wild west character can go down the street and play in
the space opera campaign.

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
+ FUDGE is free.

So is GURPS Lite.

oh yeah. :)

Post by Chuk Goodin
Having actually gamed with Fudge, I find it to be much quicker than GURPS.
The less detailed combat rules (unless you want to add extra detail) and
the ease of creating characters actually save a lot of time. That time
could then be used to detail the setting and background and come up with
adventures.

You're talking about saving time during the game, then saying you have more
time to come up with adventures... I don't see how these relate unless
you're designing future campaigns while you game. ;)

There's in-game activities and out-game activities. For in-game, there's
probably no need to compare. Both games can play at whatever speed you
desire. Both have basic and detailed combat rules. I prefer, of course, the
reality-based GURPS systems, whereas some might like the less-detailed
FUDGE. The out-game activities are what concerns me. With GURPS, I can focus
on my campaign, the plot, the characters, etc., right from the start. With
FUDGE, there are tons of game system considerations, from skill set,
attributes, etc. Once I have all that down, then I can begin the actual
campaign creation activities.

Chuk, thanks for the comments. You've helped me more clearly see the bigger
pictures here.

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Sonny Maou
"Chuk Goodin" wrote...

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
- GMs like me don't often have enough time to customize FUDGE to the

extent

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
as would be required to get a campaign up and running, much less create

the

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
game world itself.

This is only true to a limited extent. While you'll have to do a little
work at the start, the sheer ease of making Fudge characters will quickly
make up for it. If you're running GURPS, unless you only use premade
adventures (in which case you won't be playing very long!), you'll take
more time making up NPCs and detailing magic items or vehicles than you
ever would in Fudge.

In Fudge, you have to determine all the attributes you're going to use.

If in doubt, let the players pick the attributes ;) Just make sure
that attributes that cover the same thing have the same name ;) Any
attributes a player doesn't pick that others do are considered Fair.

Post by Sonny Maou
Then
you have to determine the skills list. I've got all that pre-made in GURPS.

Use the GURPS skill list ;)

Post by Sonny Maou
For character creation by players, you might have a point. I did not compare
the character creation procedures.

FUDGE characters can take as much time to work up as a GURPS
character, but the math is a lot easier, normally.

Post by Sonny Maou
For GMs, why would "making up NPCs" and "detailing magic items or vehicles"
take more time in GURPS than in FUDGE, especially if you make use of
worldbooks?

For magic items, I'm not sure. For vehicles, it depends on what level
of detail you want and if the vehicle in question is actually *in*
some worldbook. For NPCs, I rarely work out point totals -- I just
give them what I think they should have. OTOH, I've played and GMed
GURPS for some 12 years, so I can eyeball the difference between a 25
and 150 point character easily ;)

Post by Sonny Maou
I'm sure there are "worldbooks" out there for FUDGE, though...

There is Gatecrasher 2/e and a Steampunkish setting (the name eludes
me). A lot of people take setting from other game systems and use them
with FUDGE.

Post by Sonny Maou
I think the hit points are crucial, and much better for narrative...

I think FUDGE wound levels work well.

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Chuk Goodin
This is true, assuming you insist on all PCs having the same attributes
(which I probably would, actually).

You'd have to... there's no way around that. Imagine for two groups who use
FUDGE, Group A uses IQ, and Group B uses Intuition, Perception, Common
Sense, and Knowledge. Group A's skillset will be solely based on IQ, whereas
Group B has no doubt created its own skill set using all four intelligence
attributes. How do you bring one character from one group to the other?

Your probably don't. Remember, however, that in standard FUDGE
attributes mean nothing for skill use. One option I've considered is
that if a skill's trait level exceeds the "governing" attribute's
level by more than one, it costs twice as much to improve (but not
start with) the skill. OTOH, this eliminates some character types, so
I'm not sure.

Post by Sonny Maou
Don't even think of merging the two groups. Obviously, in these extreme
cases, it's best probably to just let the newcomer create a new character.
But that's the point... characters can't come and go. It's not "universal,"
like GURPS, where my wild west character can go down the street and play in
the space opera campaign.

To be honest, characters from my GURPS campaigns (especially my
cyberfantasy campaign) would require adjustments before they could fit
in any other GURPS campaign.

Post by Sonny Maou
FUDGE, there are tons of game system considerations, from skill set,
attributes, etc. Once I have all that down, then I can begin the actual
campaign creation activities.

Unless, of course, you convert another system's setting (eg,
Traveller).

Brandon

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Chuk Goodin
This is only true to a limited extent. While you'll have to do a little
work at the start, the sheer ease of making Fudge characters will quickly
make up for it. If you're running GURPS, unless you only use premade
adventures (in which case you won't be playing very long!), you'll take
more time making up NPCs and detailing magic items or vehicles than you
ever would in Fudge.

In Fudge, you have to determine all the attributes you're going to use. Then
you have to determine the skills list. I've got all that pre-made in GURPS.

Ah, I think I see what's going on here. Are you trying to compare GURPS
and "Fudge run with as many details as GURPS"? While I do usually
determine attributes that I'm going to use, you don't technically have to
in Fudge, and I've never done a whole skill list.

Post by Sonny Maou
For character creation by players, you might have a point. I did not compare
the character creation procedures.
For GMs, why would "making up NPCs" and "detailing magic items or vehicles"
take more time in GURPS than in FUDGE, especially if you make use of
worldbooks?

Making a Fudge character (that is, writing up the game stats, as opposed
to inventing the character) can be done in a few minutes, without even
having the books most of the time. In GURPS, there's point totals to
worry about and advantages and skill descriptions to look up. If you're
going to stat up NPCs, it would take a lot longer in GURPS than in Fudge.
Now, if you've got them already written up, fine -- it's no time for
either system.

And have you seen GURPS Vehicles? It takes longer to make a GURPS vehicle
than it does to play some entire Fudge campaigns.

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Chuk Goodin
That looks like a personal opinion one -- I could go either way on this
myself. More of the work is already done for you in GURPS, but there's
less work that needs to be done for Fudge.

Post by Sonny Maou
- FUDGE words are too abstract. I'd rather assign words to a concrete

result

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
(-2, you were "lightly wounded") and truly understand how close to

scarring

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
they came or how close to death they are than work it in reverse: "you

were

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
lightly wounded, and combined with your previous light would and serious
wound before that... uh... who knows?!"

Again, that's a personal choice thing.

I think the hit points are crucial, and much better for narrative...
GM: The arrow sticks with a thud into your thigh.
Player: Oy, vey!!!
GM: <rolling behind GM screen: 4 pts of damage> It really hurts.
Player: Ai, caramba!!! It's in the bone! It's in the bone!
GM: <noting player has only 2 hit points left> You are feeling pretty weak.
Player: Homina homina!!!

You'll notice that the hit points don't even actually come into the
narrative there -- you could replace them with Fudge's wound levels
without changing anything.

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Chuk Goodin
This is true, assuming you insist on all PCs having the same attributes
(which I probably would, actually).

You'd have to... there's no way around that. Imagine for two groups who use
FUDGE, Group A uses IQ, and Group B uses Intuition, Perception, Common
Sense, and Knowledge. Group A's skillset will be solely based on IQ, whereas
Group B has no doubt created its own skill set using all four intelligence
attributes. How do you bring one character from one group to the other?
Don't even think of merging the two groups. Obviously, in these extreme
cases, it's best probably to just let the newcomer create a new character.
But that's the point... characters can't come and go. It's not "universal,"
like GURPS, where my wild west character can go down the street and play in
the space opera campaign.

Hey, just because one Fudge character has one set of attributes doesn't
mean the other ones do. Most people don't play it like that as far as I
know, but the suggestion is made in the rule book.

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Chuk Goodin
Having actually gamed with Fudge, I find it to be much quicker than GURPS.
The less detailed combat rules (unless you want to add extra detail) and
the ease of creating characters actually save a lot of time. That time
could then be used to detail the setting and background and come up with
adventures.

You're talking about saving time during the game, then saying you have more
time to come up with adventures... I don't see how these relate unless
you're designing future campaigns while you game. ;)

That was kind of conflated, yeah. The combat is faster, which means you
spend more time in game exploring the setting and roleplaying. Making
characters is faster, so during out of game prep-time the GM has more time
to make up non-game-stat related things.

Post by Sonny Maou
There's in-game activities and out-game activities. For in-game, there's
probably no need to compare. Both games can play at whatever speed you
desire. Both have basic and detailed combat rules. I prefer, of course, the
reality-based GURPS systems, whereas some might like the less-detailed
FUDGE. The out-game activities are what concerns me. With GURPS, I can focus
on my campaign, the plot, the characters, etc., right from the start. With
FUDGE, there are tons of game system considerations, from skill set,
attributes, etc. Once I have all that down, then I can begin the actual
campaign creation activities.

I'd have to say, that's only if you're not going to write up any NPCs or
other things that need game stats in GURPS.

You might even be able to make a kind of continuum here: Fudge --> GURPS
--> D&D 3rd edition. Fudge has relatively few worldbooks and adventures,
GURPS has lots of worldbooks and a couple of adventures, and D&D has
enough adventures that you could probably campaign weekly for the rest of
your life without using them all.

I'm just wondering here: Do you play GURPS? Have you started up a
campaign before? If so, didn't you find that you needed to spend some
prep time on "game rule" stuff? Not all GMs do, I know -- I tend to
minimize it myself, and in that case the time savings from Fudge wouldn't
be a big deal.

[Sonny Maou]

"Chuk Goodin" wrote some more...

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
In Fudge, you have to determine all the attributes you're going to use. Then
you have to determine the skills list. I've got all that pre-made in GURPS.

Ah, I think I see what's going on here. Are you trying to compare GURPS
and "Fudge run with as many details as GURPS"?

I think so.

Post by Chuk Goodin
While I do usually
determine attributes that I'm going to use, you don't technically have to
in Fudge, and I've never done a whole skill list.

Is Fudge closer to a diceless system, then? I didn't get that when I read it
ages ago (I procrastinated on posting my review)... :/

Post by Chuk Goodin

Post by Sonny Maou
I think the hit points are crucial, and much better for narrative...
GM: The arrow sticks with a thud into your thigh.
Player: Oy, vey!!!
GM: <rolling behind GM screen: 4 pts of damage> It really hurts.
Player: Ai, caramba!!! It's in the bone! It's in the bone!
GM: <noting player has only 2 hit points left> You are feeling pretty weak.
Player: Homina homina!!!

You'll notice that the hit points don't even actually come into the
narrative there -- you could replace them with Fudge's wound levels
without changing anything.

No, the points don't come into play during the narrative. That's the GM
doing his job. However, the points are crucial behind the scenes... the GM
knows at what point the PC starts feelings faint. He knows specifically when
he can say, "You fall down dead."

Post by Chuk Goodin
Hey, just because one Fudge character has one set of attributes doesn't
mean the other ones do. Most people don't play it like that as far as I
know, but the suggestion is made in the rule book.

Then how do you reconcile one FUDGE PC's IQ vs. another's
Perception/Intuition/Knowledge? I'm sure it's an arbitrary decision by the
GM, but I don't sleep well with arbitrariness.

Post by Chuk Goodin
I'm just wondering here: Do you play GURPS? Have you started up a
campaign before?

Yes. Yes.

Post by Chuk Goodin
If so, didn't you find that you needed to spend some
prep time on "game rule" stuff?

Not much. I basically just stick to GURPS Basic. My next campaign might
include CI and CII, maybe MA...

Post by Chuk Goodin
Not all GMs do, I know -- I tend to
minimize it myself, and in that case the time savings from Fudge wouldn't
be a big deal.

As I originally stated in my initial post, I prefer GURPS over FUDGE because
I have little play time, so instead of dwelling on the mechanics of the
gaming system, I'd rather spend time developing the adventure. However, I
should probably review FUDGE one more time. Sounds like I may have missed
some things in my initial reading.

Thanks for all your comments, GURPS gurus... :)

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> FUDGE because I have little play time, so instead of dwelling
SM> on the mechanics of the gaming system, I'd rather spend time
SM> developing the adventure. However, I should probably review
SM> FUDGE one more time. Sounds like I may have missed some things
SM> in my initial reading.

One of the basic design motivations behind FUDGE goes like this. If
there's a rule for something, you either need to know it off the top
of your head or you need to look it up. This is true whether you
created the rule yourself or whether it's in an Official Game
Supplement. So instead of providing rules for everything, FUDGE
provides you with an intentionally coarse-grained mechanism for action
resolution that lets you stop worrying about whether such-and-so skill
is M/E or cross-class, and whether the advantage Banana Peel Walking
is an adequate prerequisite for the feat Make The Sound Of One Hand
Clapping.

If you're grafting lots of rules onto FUDGE, you're missing the point:
the goal is to have minimal rules and to treat everything either as a
simple action that requires a certain level of success or as an
opposed action. The goal is to keep the action going, not to model
reality perfectly.

As a for-instance: Suppose my character wants to jump over a huge
chasm in an underground cave, so that the rest of the party can throw
a rope to him and cross the chasm. Resolving this in FUDGE might look
like this:

GM: Make me either a Jumping check or a Dexterity check. You need
Good to get across without any problems.

Me: (rolls) Drat, no Jumping skill, I rolled Fair.

GM: Oh my. Roll me a Dexterity check to see how well you manage to
recover.

Me: (rolls) Well, this time I got a Good.

GM: You manage to catch yourself. Mark off a Light Wound, though,
you got banged up a bit. And you're hanging on to a ledge about
15 yards down....

Now, most other games have detailed jumping and falling rules; the
point of FUDGE is that they don't necessarily add much beyond that,
and it takes brain-space to remember them or time to look them up --
brain-space and time that could be spent on other things.

This may not fit your play style. Some players (including GMs) don't
like the freeform judgment-call approach to rules; every judgment call
you take away from the rules and the dice needs to be given to a human
being, and it's a lot easier to trust the rules and the dice than
another human being.

Beyond that, you certainly *can* graft any number of complex rules
onto FUDGE, and if you enjoy that, more power to you. The 4dF
resolution mechanic in itself is elegant and useful, and could
probably serve as the core of a very crunchy game. But I'd suggest
that you try FUDGE largely as written before trying to amend it, even
if only for a one-shot (which it's eminently suited for).

My, here I am being reasonable, and on Usenet no less.

Charlton

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Charlton Wilbur
My, here I am being reasonable, and on Usenet no less.

My sock puppets won't allow that ;)

Brandon

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by Charlton Wilbur
This may not fit your play style. Some players (including GMs) don't
like the freeform judgment-call approach to rules; every judgment call
you take away from the rules and the dice needs to be given to a human
being, and it's a lot easier to trust the rules and the dice than
another human being.
Beyond that, you certainly *can* graft any number of complex rules
onto FUDGE, and if you enjoy that, more power to you. The 4dF
resolution mechanic in itself is elegant and useful, and could
probably serve as the core of a very crunchy game. But I'd suggest
that you try FUDGE largely as written before trying to amend it, even
if only for a one-shot (which it's eminently suited for).
My, here I am being reasonable, and on Usenet no less.

And so well, too. That was the point I was trying to make, but I was less
eloquent and more sort of verbally flailing around.

[Sonny Maou]

"Robert FISHER" wrote...

Post by Sonny Maou
"Chuk Goodin" wrote some more...

Post by Chuk Goodin
Hey, just because one Fudge character has one set of attributes doesn't
mean the other ones do. Most people don't play it like that as far as I
know, but the suggestion is made in the rule book.

Then how do you reconcile one FUDGE PC's IQ vs. another's
Perception/Intuition/Knowledge? I'm sure it's an arbitrary decision by the
GM, but I don't sleep well with arbitrariness.

Yes. The GM fudges it. If you aren't comfortable with that, then Fudge
probably isn't for you.

What I'm concerned with is fairness. RPGing is, after all, a game. The point
of the game is to "satisfy the conditions of the win state," whatever that
may be. In order to do that, one must have rules that govern the activities
of each player. Imagine two people playing chess, but one suddenly announces
that "my pawns can move like queens... and... check mate." That' snot fair.

Post by Sonny Maou
As I originally stated in my initial post, I prefer GURPS over FUDGE because
I have little play time, so instead of dwelling on the mechanics of the
gaming system, I'd rather spend time developing the adventure.

The ironic thing is that, from having read lots Steffan's writing, I
gather that he created Fudge precisely because he didn't want to dwell
on mechanics.

I would say that he didn't want to dwell on "complicated" mechanics. What he
offers, therefore, is a framework on which to base your game's mechanics,
and you can make those mechanics as simple or as complex, as generalized or
as detailed, as you desire.

Also, he didn't like seeing players dwell on mechanics at
the expense of roleplaying.

If you're RPGing "just to roleplay," then you should probably just write
stories. It's a lot easier and there are no other people around to shock you
back into reality.

My players come to the table, with their intricate PCs, with one objective:
"win." "Winning" means "destroy the dragon" or "deliver the goods" or
"explore the region" or "rescue the damsel" or whatever our current "win
state" definition requires. :)

Can I GM fairly without rules? Yes. Can I be less-than-arbitrary? Sure. Will
my players agree with my fairness and non-arbitrariness? Maybe not 100%. :)

We're intelligent, creative people; and we can replace a tome full of
mechanics and lists of things with a simple metarule, some common sense,
and some creativity.

Whereas we are said intelligent, creative people, we do have to contend with
players who, more often than not, are complete imbeciles. (That's a joke,
people!) But you see my point...

My rules of RPG:

1. Be fair.*
2. Be real.
3. Don't argue with the GM.**

Following these rules leads to our primary objective: Have fun.

*This means, "Stay within the rules of the gameworld within which you
play."***
**You may discuss "ingame issues" with the GM only during out-of-game hours,
and only via email.
***This further means that you better have some semblance of a ruleset if
you hope to keep things agreeable.****
****Agreeableness, of course, is never guaranteed.

:)

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> What I'm concerned with is fairness. RPGing is, after all, a
SM> game. The point of the game is to "satisfy the conditions of
SM> the win state," whatever that may be. In order to do that, one
SM> must have rules that govern the activities of each
SM> player.

The point of *your* games. Other people play with very different
goals in mind. This is why there are *many* roleplaying rules
systems.

SM> If you're RPGing "just to roleplay," then you should probably
SM> just write stories. It's a lot easier and there are no other
SM> people around to shock you back into reality.

Alternately, if you're RPGing "just to roleplay," then you should
probably pick a rules system and fellow players that support it well.
It's not at all difficult to accomplish, if everyone in the group
wants to do it, and if that's the case, complicated rules systems
aren't necessary or useful; in fact, they get in the way. Thus FUDGE.

SM> My players come to the table, with their intricate PCs, with
SM> one objective: "win." "Winning" means "destroy the dragon" or
SM> "deliver the goods" or "explore the region" or "rescue the
SM> damsel" or whatever our current "win state" definition
SM> requires. :)

My players come to the table with one objective, too: enjoy the
events of the session. This doesn't always mean "win."

Some of the most wonderful roleplaying sessions I ever took part in
could have been summarized as "six weeks pass on the ship." Instead,
we spent about four sessions with the players telling each other
world-appropriate stories in-character, like the _Canterbury Tales_.

Different people -- and even the same people at different times --
play roleplaying games for different reasons.

SM> Can I GM fairly without rules? Yes. Can I be
SM> less-than-arbitrary? Sure. Will my players agree with my
SM> fairness and non-arbitrariness? Maybe not 100%. :)

It sounds like FUDGE is a poor choice of game system for your needs,
then. You and your players seem to want more rules and more crunchy
bits than it provides.

Charlton

[Sonny Maou]

"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
SM> My players come to the table, with their intricate PCs, with
SM> one objective: "win." "Winning" means "destroy the dragon" or
SM> "deliver the goods" or "explore the region" or "rescue the
SM> damsel" or whatever our current "win state" definition
SM> requires. :)
My players come to the table with one objective, too: enjoy the
events of the session. This doesn't always mean "win."

I put my cart before the horse... Let me re-state: We play to have fun, and
the most fun can be had by "achieving the objectives." ("Success" is always
more fun than "failure.") "Achieving the objectives" can be generally stated
as "winning." :)

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Some of the most wonderful roleplaying sessions I ever took part in
could have been summarized as "six weeks pass on the ship." Instead,
we spent about four sessions with the players telling each other
world-appropriate stories in-character, like the _Canterbury Tales_.

Well, sounds like fun to me! Especially if they were good stories. :)

Whereas your purpose for those particular gaming sessions was "introduce PCs
to each other," no doubt there is an overriding, overarching,
all-encompassing objective, even if it's just as general as, "Don't get
killed."

Of course, if you're roleplaying in heaven, the story telling is interesting
only for so long. Eventually, you gotta have Lucifer rise up and stir up
some animosity. Know what I mean?

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> "Charlton Wilbur" wrote... My players come to the table, with
SM> their intricate PCs, with one objective: "win." "Winning"
SM> means "destroy the dragon" or "deliver the goods" or "explore
SM> the region" or "rescue the damsel" or whatever our current
SM> "win state" definition requires. :)

My players come to the table with one objective, too: enjoy
the events of the session. This doesn't always mean "win."

SM> I put my cart before the horse... Let me re-state: We play to
SM> have fun, and the most fun can be had by "achieving the
SM> objectives." ("Success" is always more fun than "failure.")
SM> "Achieving the objectives" can be generally stated as
SM> "winning." :)

The most fun *for you* can be had by achieving the objectives. Other
people play differently. Some of us don't care about success or
failure, as long as there are fun things to do along the way. Our
*characters* might care about success or failure, but it can be as
much fun to roleplay a character who tries and fails as it is to play
a character who succeeds.

So, no, I reject the premise. It's not necessarily the case that the
most fun can be had when the characters achieve their objectives.
It's not necessarily the case that character success is more fun than
character failure. It's not necessarily the case that character
success and player success are the same thing.

This may seem alien to you, based on what you've said. Good. There
are six-and-ninety ways to play a roleplaying game, and all of them
are right.

Some of the most wonderful roleplaying sessions I ever took
part in could have been summarized as "six weeks pass on the
ship." Instead, we spent about four sessions with the players
telling each other world-appropriate stories in-character, like
the _Canterbury Tales_.

SM> Well, sounds like fun to me! Especially if they were good
SM> stories. :)

SM> Whereas your purpose for those particular gaming sessions was
SM> "introduce PCs to each other," no doubt there is an
SM> overriding, overarching, all-encompassing objective, even if
SM> it's just as general as, "Don't get killed."

Hardly -- this was mid-campaign, and the characters knew they had to
get evidence across the ocean to warn the country there and mitigate
the damage from the impending war. *No* game-world-related goal was
achieved during those six weeks of game time. The objective was to
entertain the players and make the gameworld that much richer.
*Nothing* was achieved in-game; the same in-game effect could have
been handled by the GM saying "Six weeks pass, and you're now in Cold
Harbor."

SM> Of course, if you're roleplaying in heaven, the story telling
SM> is interesting only for so long. Eventually, you gotta have
SM> Lucifer rise up and stir up some animosity. Know what I mean?

But it's *all* storytelling and simulation and roleplaying; it's just
that some of it is more participatory than others, and some of it is
opposed and some isn't. I know exactly what you mean; I just disagree
with it.

It's *entirely* possible to play a game that *doesn't* focus on
characters accomplishing objectives that the GM has set and thus
"winning"; you just find other things to focus on, like the richness
of the world or the motivations of individual characters.

Charlton

[Sonny Maou]

"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
SM> I put my cart before the horse... Let me re-state: We play to
SM> have fun, and the most fun can be had by "achieving the
SM> objectives." ("Success" is always more fun than "failure.")
SM> "Achieving the objectives" can be generally stated as
SM> "winning." :)
The most fun *for you* can be had by achieving the objectives.

No, the most fun for *any human being* is had when goals or objectives are
achieved, or when purpose is followed.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
people play differently.

But not for different reasons... ;)

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Some of us don't care about success or
failure, as long as there are fun things to do along the way.

Yes, you're right. The ultimate success or failure of ingame PCs does not
necessarily weigh heavier than the ingame pursuit of objectives...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Our
*characters* might care about success or failure, but it can be as
much fun to roleplay a character who tries and fails as it is to play
a character who succeeds.

Agreed... sometimes it's better to fail so you can have another go at it
later. (I think that's called creating tension or something.)

Post by Charlton Wilbur
So, no, I reject the premise. It's not necessarily the case that the
most fun can be had when the characters achieve their objectives.
It's not necessarily the case that character success is more fun than
character failure. It's not necessarily the case that character
success and player success are the same thing.

Agreed.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
This may seem alien to you, based on what you've said.

No, I've just not stated my thoughts clearly. You've helped me refine them!
Thanks. :)

Post by Charlton Wilbur

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Some of the most wonderful roleplaying sessions I ever took
part in could have been summarized as "six weeks pass on the
ship." Instead, we spent about four sessions with the players
telling each other world-appropriate stories in-character, like
the _Canterbury Tales_.

SM> Whereas your purpose for those particular gaming sessions was
SM> "introduce PCs to each other," no doubt there is an
SM> overriding, overarching, all-encompassing objective, even if
SM> it's just as general as, "Don't get killed."
Hardly -- this was mid-campaign, and the characters knew they had to
get evidence across the ocean to warn the country there and mitigate
the damage from the impending war.

So your group draws out "Six weeks pass, and you're now in Cold Harbor." So
what? Isn't the same objective achieved: Get to Cold Harbor?

Post by Charlton Wilbur
*No* game-world-related goal was
achieved during those six weeks of game time.

Yes there was: Get to Cold Harbor. You just happened to use the time in
between to enhance the players' experience with one another.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
The objective was to
entertain the players and make the gameworld that much richer.

Oh, well... there ya go. :)

Post by Charlton Wilbur
But it's *all* storytelling and simulation and roleplaying; it's just
that some of it is more participatory than others, and some of it is
opposed and some isn't. I know exactly what you mean; I just disagree
with it.

Actually, we agree, probably on all points, too! The "game" can include
those (seemingly pointless, yet always having a point) trips across the sea,
where PC development takes over (becomes the current objective). But, we
both agree, you eventually reach "Cold Harbor."

Post by Charlton Wilbur
It's *entirely* possible to play a game that *doesn't* focus on
characters accomplishing objectives that the GM has set and thus
"winning"; you just find other things to focus on, like the richness
of the world or the motivations of individual characters.

You mean like dropping the characters into a gameworld and letting them have
at it, as they wish?

[Travis Casey]

Post by Sonny Maou
"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Some of us don't care about success or
failure, as long as there are fun things to do along the way.

Yes, you're right. The ultimate success or failure of ingame PCs does not
necessarily weigh heavier than the ingame pursuit of objectives...

I think the primary point here is this: the *characters'* goals are not
necessarily the same as the *players'* goals. Particularly in a
comedy-oriented game, the *players* may be able to have plenty of fun
without the characters achieving their goals.

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Our
*characters* might care about success or failure, but it can be as
much fun to roleplay a character who tries and fails as it is to play
a character who succeeds.

Agreed... sometimes it's better to fail so you can have another go at it
later. (I think that's called creating tension or something.)

Or, sometimes, it can be more fun for a character to just outright fail.
For example, I've recently been playing the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" RPG,
playing Ginny, a character who's a somewhat-manipulative beginning witch.
In our first adventure, the group had to jump down onto a moving mine shaft
elevator; the GM was having us roll Acrobatics checks to see if we could do
it successfully.

My character was the third one to jump down. From the results of the
previous two attempts, I knew that if I spent a Drama Point, Ginny could
make the jump with no chance of failure. If I didn't spend one, I'd have
an 80% or worse chance of failure.

Now, if I were going purely on Ginny's goals, I would have spent the drama
point -- she wanted to jump down there without getting hurt. However, as
the player, I knew that she wouldn't get seriously hurt from missing the
jump roll... and I knew that I could have a lot of fun playing an injured
Ginny, having her lean on the guys of the group, etc. So I didn't spend
the Drama Point, and she failed. The GM ruled that she landed badly and
had a twisted ankle... which played nicely into what I wanted as the
player.

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Charlton Wilbur
The objective was to
entertain the players and make the gameworld that much richer.

Oh, well... there ya go. :)

But note that this doesn't have to have anything to do with the characters'
objectives. If the ship sank before the end of the journey, would that
mean that all the enjoyment that happened in the sessions along the way
didn't matter?

Well... to some people it would. But personally, I consider that to be
their problem. :-)

I've had fun in campaigns that never finished. The characters never
achieved their goal; something happened to make the game fold up before
that could happen. But the *players* achieved the primary goal of having
fun.

It's like a bunch of kids playing baseball without bothering to keep score.
To some people, it might seem like a waste of time, since you don't know
who won or lost. But if the kids are having fun doing it, is it a waste of
time *to them*?

Post by Sonny Maou
What I'm concerned with is fairness. RPGing is, after all, a game. The
point of the game is to "satisfy the conditions of the win state,"
whatever that may be. In order to do that, one must have rules that govern
the activities of each player. Imagine two people playing chess, but one
suddenly announces that "my pawns can move like queens... and... check
mate." That' snot fair.

The "win state" however, can be something like "we all have fun playing".
Further, while rules may be helpful, there's no reason why they can't be
loose rules which get amended or changed as necessary, to keep things fun.
If, in the middle of a game of chess, one player says, "Hey, I think this
would be more fun if the pawns could move backwards! Why don't we play
that way?" and the other player agrees... well, they may not be playing
chess "by the rules" any more, but is it "unfair" if they've both agreed to
it? And if they have fun playing that way, is it "wrong"?

And for that matter, if two people grab a chessboard and a bunch of chess
pieces and start making up their own game, and have fun doing that, is that
wrong?

To a great extent, that's what rules-light systems are: "We've got a board,
we've got a few pieces, we've got some ideas here on how you could use
them. Now take them and have fun." It's not everyone's cup of tea... and
even those who enjoy it sometimes like to play something more structured.
But there's nothing *wrong* with playing that way.

[Sonny Maou]

"Travis Casey" wrote...

Post by Travis Casey
In our first adventure, the group had to jump down onto a moving mine shaft
elevator; the GM was having us roll Acrobatics checks to see if we could do
it successfully.
My character was the third one to jump down. From the results of the
previous two attempts, I knew that if I spent a Drama Point, Ginny could
make the jump with no chance of failure. If I didn't spend one, I'd have
an 80% or worse chance of failure.
Now, if I were going purely on Ginny's goals, I would have spent the drama
point -- she wanted to jump down there without getting hurt. However, as
the player, I knew that she wouldn't get seriously hurt from missing the
jump roll... and I knew that I could have a lot of fun playing an injured
Ginny, having her lean on the guys of the group, etc. So I didn't spend
the Drama Point, and she failed. The GM ruled that she landed badly and
had a twisted ankle... which played nicely into what I wanted as the
player.

Good Lord, man! Why didn't you just say, "I jump, but I miss on purpose?" It
would have saved a die roll, at least. ;) And what would have happened if
you succeeded? Would you have been disappointed? That's some screwy logic
goin' on there, but "to each his own" is what I say. :P

Post by Travis Casey

Post by Sonny Maou

Post by Charlton Wilbur
The objective was to
entertain the players and make the gameworld that much richer.

Oh, well... there ya go. :)

But note that this doesn't have to have anything to do with the characters'
objectives. If the ship sank before the end of the journey, would that
mean that all the enjoyment that happened in the sessions along the way
didn't matter?

Like I revised, the "fun" is had in pursuing objectives... but those
objectives must exist nonetheless.

Players obviously know the risk they take when playing... they might fail.

Post by Travis Casey
I've had fun in campaigns that never finished. The characters never
achieved their goal; something happened to make the game fold up before
that could happen.

That's always a possibility. You either win or you lose. Everybody knows
this.

Post by Travis Casey
It's like a bunch of kids playing baseball without bothering to keep score.
To some people, it might seem like a waste of time, since you don't know
who won or lost. But if the kids are having fun doing it, is it a waste of
time *to them*?

It's not a waste of time UNLESS, while playing baseball, they never try to
get on base, or they never try to pitch the ball, or they don't keep track
of outs... see what I mean? You don't have to keep score, but you still have
ingame objectives. Otherwise, it's not baseball. You're just playing "hit
the ball or don't, whatever, who cares."

Post by Travis Casey
The "win state" however, can be something like "we all have fun playing."

The end-all be-all of the game is "have fun," but HOW do you have fun?
You're using circular reasoning here:

Objective (win state): Have fun.
How: Have fun.

See? Yes, the objective is to "have fun," but HOW you have fun is what I'm
talking about. And you have fun by "pursuing ingame objectives," whether
that is to "get to Cold Harbor" or whether that is to "learn more about each
character in the party" (kind of a story-telling RPG).

For your baseball example above, "having fun" means "hitting the ball,"
"getting on base," "throwing the ball to first for an out."

You can't do "nothing" and expect to enjoy it (unless you're weird). It's
also no longer a game.

Post by Travis Casey
Further, while rules may be helpful, there's no reason why they can't be
loose rules which get amended or changed as necessary, to keep things fun.

Agreed.

Post by Travis Casey
If, in the middle of a game of chess, one player says, "Hey, I think this
would be more fun if the pawns could move backwards! Why don't we play
that way?" and the other player agrees... well, they may not be playing
chess "by the rules" any more...

They are playing chess by a set of rules... modified rules, but rules
nonetheless. You can't play a game without rules. It's impossible. Either
it's no longer a game, or it's no longer fun.

Post by Travis Casey
...but is it "unfair" if they've both agreed to
it? And if they have fun playing that way, is it "wrong"?

Of cour snot. All players (in this case, two) have agreed to the rules, just
like in any RPGing session. All players understand the rules. The rules
provide a structure upon which to act. The rules should be consistent so
that nobody is going to be surprised when somebody moves his pawn backwards
and to the left. "Hey! That's not allowed!"

Post by Travis Casey
And for that matter, if two people grab a chessboard and a bunch of chess
pieces and start making up their own game, and have fun doing that, is that
wrong?

Of course not. But by "making up their own game," they have made up a game
with rules. It doesn't matter what the pieces are.

Post by Travis Casey
But there's nothing *wrong* with playing that way.

I don't think this was ever about right and wrong. I certainly would not
label anybody's playing style as wrong. That's just silly. Different strokes
'n' all dat... :)

[Robert FISHER]

Post by Travis Casey
And for that matter, if two people grab a chessboard and a bunch of chess
pieces and start making up their own game, and have fun doing that, is that
wrong?

I and a friend actually did this once.

[Sonny Maou]

Post by Robert FISHER

Post by Travis Casey
And for that matter, if two people grab a chessboard and a bunch of chess
pieces and start making up their own game, and have fun doing that, is that
wrong?

I and a friend actually did this once.

Check out Knightmare Chess for some interesting variants... :)

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> So your group draws out "Six weeks pass, and you're now in
SM> Cold Harbor." So what? Isn't the same objective achieved: Get
SM> to Cold Harbor?

But the thing that satisfied the players was not getting to Cold
Harbor, but telling stories to each other in-character. The players
were not satisfied because the characters achieved a goal; the players
had a separate goal from their characters. Getting to Cold Harbor was
almost anticlimactic, because it meant that the in-game conceit that
allowed the storytelling to happen was gone.

A good metaphor for this may be the way some people travel: ticking
off Important Things To See in their guidebook, as if it is some kind
of checklist. I saw this in the Louvre: people going to see the Mona
Lisa and the Winged Victory. I managed to get myself completely lost,
never saw the Mona Lisa *or* the Winged Victory, and spent a wonderful
day wandering through rooms of Egyptian antiquities and 18th-century
engravings. Sometimes I do an analogous thing with characters, or
with a group of characters: no objectives, just throw them into an
interesting environment and see what happens.

Sure, it's fun when the characters manage to collect all the plot
coupons and amass enough low die rolls and modifiers to defeat the bad
guys. But that's far from the only fun thing to do in roleplaying.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
It's *entirely* possible to play a game that *doesn't* focus on
characters accomplishing objectives that the GM has set and
thus "winning"; you just find other things to focus on, like
the richness of the world or the motivations of individual
characters.

SM> You mean like dropping the characters into a gameworld and
SM> letting them have at it, as they wish?

Yes. If the characters find a goal, so be it; if they don't, why
expect the GM to provide them with one?

Charlton

[Sonny Maou]

"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
SM> So your group draws out "Six weeks pass, and you're now in
SM> Cold Harbor." So what? Isn't the same objective achieved: Get
SM> to Cold Harbor?
A good metaphor for this may be the way some people travel...

Not a game (no competitive component) so hardly analogous... unless you're
saying that you don't really RPG, but rather, storytell... ;)

Post by Charlton Wilbur
engravings. Sometimes I do an analogous thing with characters, or
with a group of characters: no objectives, just throw them into an
interesting environment and see what happens.

I guarantee that without eventual conflict, you people would get bored with
your storytelling and start to thirst for a game. Some roleplaying isn't a
game, I guess!

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Sure, it's fun when the characters manage to collect all the plot
coupons and amass enough low die rolls and modifiers to defeat the bad
guys.

Love that! :D

Post by Charlton Wilbur
But that's far from the only fun thing to do in roleplaying.

Agreed.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
SM> You mean like dropping the characters into a gameworld and
SM> letting them have at it, as they wish?
Yes. If the characters find a goal, so be it; if they don't, why
expect the GM to provide them with one?

You better know every last detail of that gameworld, GM... whew!

Got any game session logs you can share? :)

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> Not a game (no competitive component) so hardly
SM> analogous... unless you're saying that you don't really RPG,
SM> but rather, storytell... ;)

Why does an RPG require a competitive component? Can't the GM and the
players cooperate?

SM> I guarantee that without eventual conflict, you people would
SM> get bored with your storytelling and start to thirst for a
SM> game. Some roleplaying isn't a game, I guess!

BINGO. There are many more ways to roleplay than you seem to be
willing to account for.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Sure, it's fun when the characters manage to collect all the
plot coupons and amass enough low die rolls and modifiers to
defeat the bad guys.

SM> Love that! :D

I don't, actually; I suppose the sarcasm didn't come through.

SM> You mean like dropping the characters into a gameworld and
SM> letting them have at it, as they wish?

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Yes. If the characters find a goal, so be it; if they don't,
why expect the GM to provide them with one?

SM> You better know every last detail of that gameworld,
SM> GM... whew!

Why? There's no reason that the players can't make up details
themselves. Again, there are more ways to play roleplaying games than
are apparently dreamt of in your philosophy.

Charlton

[Sonny Maou]

"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Why does an RPG require a competitive component? Can't the GM and the
players cooperate?

Because of the 'G' component of RPG... "Game."

Otherwise, it's just RPing. :)

Post by Charlton Wilbur
BINGO. There are many more ways to roleplay than you seem to be
willing to account for.

No no no! I was accounting for gaming (RPGing), not roleplaying (RPing). Now
that we have realized our terms more specifically, I think we can go on...

Post by Charlton Wilbur

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Sure, it's fun when the characters manage to collect all the
plot coupons and amass enough low die rolls and modifiers to
defeat the bad guys.

SM> Love that! :D
I don't, actually; I suppose the sarcasm didn't come through.

What I meant was, I loved the humor of that sarcastic statement. I saw you
rolling your eyes as you said it... ;)

Post by Charlton Wilbur

Post by Charlton Wilbur
If the characters find a goal, so be it; if they don't,
why expect the GM to provide them with one?

SM> You better know every last detail of that gameworld,
SM> GM... whew!
Why? There's no reason that the players can't make up details
themselves.

What the?!?! So, basically, you're saying that you could RPG without a GM? I
suppose that's possible, but it's also highly probable that more problems
than not would arise. You can't game without a referee, and making the
players themselves the referee is only inviting trouble. :)

Now, if you're just talking about RPing, then that's different. Really,
that's just one big storytelling exercise... with each person playing a
part.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Again, there are more ways to play roleplaying games than
are apparently dreamt of in your philosophy.

There are many ways to roleplay, not all of which would be considered
gaming.

[Arne Jamtgaard]

Post by Sonny Maou
"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Why does an RPG require a competitive component? Can't the GM and the
players cooperate?

Because of the 'G' component of RPG... "Game."

Pretty narrow definition of game. Discounts anything non-zero-sum, which
includes the areas that the others in this discussion seem to be willing to
explore.

Post by Sonny Maou
Otherwise, it's just RPing. :)
No no no! I was accounting for gaming (RPGing), not roleplaying (RPing). Now
that we have realized our terms more specifically, I think we can go on...

Oh, okay, since we're into defining terms. You're using Webster's 3rd definition
of game. Others are using the first.

Main Entry: game
Pronunciation: 'gAm
Function: noun
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules
with the participants in direct opposition to each other

I can see why this conversation has occasionally worked at cross-purposes.

Post by Sonny Maou
What the?!?! So, basically, you're saying that you could RPG without a GM? I
suppose that's possible, but it's also highly probable that more problems
than not would arise. You can't game without a referee, and making the
players themselves the referee is only inviting trouble. :)

How do you play Monopoly without a referee?

Post by Sonny Maou
There are many ways to roleplay, not all of which would be considered
gaming.

Again, now that we know you're using a more limited version of the term
"game" it becomes clear why you are able to make the assertions that you
do.

You seem to have made 'game' mean 'the kind of playing I do', which can
be offensive to others who are pretty sure that they play games too, just
not as limited as yours.

This discussion is a regular one on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Google it
there to see what, if anything, ever comes from discussions like this.

Arne

[Arne Jamtgaard]

"Arne Jamtgaard" wrote...

Post by Arne Jamtgaard

Post by Sonny Maou
than not would arise. You can't game without a referee, and making the
players themselves the referee is only inviting trouble. :)

How do you play Monopoly without a referee?

You don't play without a referee. The players are the referees. Right? :)

Right. And I've been in games that started several hours before the GM
showed up. The players were the referees there as well.

Post by Arne Jamtgaard
You seem to have made 'game' mean 'the kind of playing I do', which can
be offensive to others who are pretty sure that they play games too, just
not as limited as yours.

Well, I hope I've not offended anybody (and if anybody was offended because
I define "game" the way I do, or I've expressed my opinions in an open forum
such as this, you really should look into seeing a head shrink).

Once I realized you were using a very narrow definition of 'game', I was
able to write off your dismissal of a large number of alternative approaches
to RPGs as 'oh, he is just saying that we don't game the way he does.'
Until that was clear, you were saying 'you all aren't really gaming', when
what you meant was 'you all aren't gaming the way I do.'

You can see how the first interpetation could come off as offensive. It's
referred to as 'one true way-ism', and doesn't really lead to fruitful
discussion.

That all said, I wanted to explore something else you got me thinking about.
Are your games all zero-sum?
* Does someone (GM/NPC/whatever) have to lose for the players/PCs to win?
* What are the objectives of the GM?
* Do the objectives of his NPCs count towards winning or losing for him?
* What do you do if you have players with different 'objectives' necessary
'to have fun'? (E.g. Anne likes to have long conversations with NPCs,
while Bill likes to solve puzzles, and Carla likes big combats, and
Den likes political intrigue.)
* What do you do if PCs have different and opposing objectives, e.g. Edith
wants her PC to get to Cold Harbor to see her liege lord, while Frank
wants to sabotage any arrival to Cold Harbor as that's where the Thieves
Guild is gunning for him?

Really interested in your answers,

Arne

[Robert FISHER]

Post by Sonny Maou
"Charlton Wilbur" wrote...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
SM> You better know every last detail of that gameworld,
SM> GM... whew!
Why? There's no reason that the players can't make up details
themselves.

What the?!?! So, basically, you're saying that you could RPG without a GM? I
suppose that's possible, but it's also highly probable that more problems
than not would arise. You can't game without a referee, and making the
players themselves the referee is only inviting trouble. :)

When I GM, I often let the players make up details about the game world.
Now, that doesn't mean they have free reign. I'll not use or modify
suggestions as I see fit, but the players are at least as creative as I
am--if not moreso.

Plus, each person has their own creative strengths, so incorporating
ideas of the whole group just makes things better.

In fact, I don't think I do this enough.

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> Yeah, sounds cool. Until one of my players slips me a note
SM> about this great idea he has about this mysterious stranger
SM> who just appeared at his door one day and tells the story of
SM> some long-lost relative who amassed a great fortune and has
SM> willed it to the PC after a mysterious death but he only need
SM> some pick it up at 2400 Adventure Ave in Adventure City, just
SM> over the mountains and across the valley and...

Competitive games are easier than cooperative ones. It only takes one
player who doesn't want to cooperate to screw up a cooperative game,
while players cooperating doesn't screw up a competitive game. So if
you're going to try a cooperative game, the other players *must* be
willing to give it a serious try.

One way to make this work is to rotate GM duties for a while. Once
all the players have taken a turn at GMing, you should have a good
sense of everyone's style. Then you can alternate GMing more, each
time relinquishing a little bit of of the "GM's" role to the
"players", until you wind up cooperating. That's how my college group
started down this road.

I imagine if you just dropped the idea on your players cold, you'd get
a couple of them doing things like you describe as an effort to "win"
the game. But "winning" in that sense is pretty shallow, and only
works if the game is very narrowly construed, with the players trying
to get more of everything and the GM trying to withhold things or set
obstacles in the path. But when those players got bored with having
imaginary money and imaginary riches -- which might take a long while,
and which might never happen -- then you're set up for a good
cooperative game.

Charlton

[Robert FISHER]

[Vicious editing below... =)]

Yeah, sounds cool. Until one of my players slips me a note about this
great
idea he has about this mysterious stranger who just appeared at his
door one
day and tells the story of some long-lost relative who amassed a great
fortune and has willed it to the PC after a mysterious death but he only
need some pick it up at 2400 Adventure Ave in Adventure City, just
over the
mountains and across the valley and...

What you might see as a headache, I call several great plot hooks.

I realize Sonny was probably just joking, but...

From most players I know, that suggestion would have been a joke as
well, thinking it'd maybe get a laugh and be forgotten. The really fun
part is when you take a suggestion made in jest and twist it into a plot
hook no one was expecting. =)

[Edward Wedig]

Post by Sonny Maou
What the?!?! So, basically, you're saying that you could RPG without a GM?

Of course you can, as long as all the participants agree to the rules.
Take a look at the Baron Munchousen game if you can. No GM, rule and
win/lose condition.

-Ed

[Robert FISHER]

Post by Sonny Maou
Can I GM fairly without rules? Yes. Can I be less-than-arbitrary? Sure. Will
my players agree with my fairness and non-arbitrariness? Maybe not 100%. :)

1. Fudge has rules. Just not as many. Perhaps Fudge concentrates on the
more important rules. Perhaps not.

2. No system covers everything, so the GM is always called to make
rulings that can't 100% without-argument be backed up by the rules. (I
certainly participated in more player/GM arguments before being
introduced to a more free-form style than after!)

GMs of all RPGs must strive to be fair and be willing to recognize when
they aren't. Players of all RPGs must assume that the the GM is really
trying to be fair and cut him some slack when they feel he isn't.

While the degree to which this is necessary does vary, you can't escape it.

3. Fudge isn't for everyone. GURPS isn't for everyone. Et cetera ad
naseum. I'm not trying to convince you to play Fudge. I just like to
help dispel the notion that Fudge can't be played successfully without
"customization". People do it. Personally, I prefer GURPS, D&D,
customized Fudge, etc.

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by Sonny Maou
"Robert FISHER" wrote...

Post by Sonny Maou
"Chuk Goodin" wrote some more...

Post by Chuk Goodin
Hey, just because one Fudge character has one set of attributes doesn't
mean the other ones do. Most people don't play it like that as far as I
know, but the suggestion is made in the rule book.

Then how do you reconcile one FUDGE PC's IQ vs. another's
Perception/Intuition/Knowledge? I'm sure it's an arbitrary decision by

the

Post by Sonny Maou
GM, but I don't sleep well with arbitrariness.

Yes. The GM fudges it. If you aren't comfortable with that, then Fudge
probably isn't for you.

What I'm concerned with is fairness. RPGing is, after all, a game. The point
of the game is to "satisfy the conditions of the win state," whatever that
may be. In order to do that, one must have rules that govern the activities
of each player. Imagine two people playing chess, but one suddenly announces
that "my pawns can move like queens... and... check mate." That' snot fair.

That would be like a GURPS player saying, "Okay, now my ST is 18 instead
of 9". You can't really do that in Fudge either (well, some characters
could in either game, but not in general).

[Charlton Wilbur]

SM> In GURPS, it's a no-brainer. However, I believe it was Chuk
SM> who said, "Just because one Fudge character has one set of
SM> attributes doesn't mean the other ones do." That's what
SM> brought on the arbitrariness concern...

SM> Imagine this:

SM> FUDGE_PC1 has ST, DX, IQ, HT
SM> FUDGE_PC2 has Brawn, Power, Perception, Intuition, Knowledge,
SM> Constituion, Charisma, Health, Agility, Fine Dexterity

SM> Yipes almighty!!! :)

SM> So if FUDGE_PC1 has a "Toughness" attribute (now, remember,
SM> this is an attribute, not a skill), and FUDGE_PC2 does not,
SM> how do you play that? How are you going to reconcile that both
SM> these character exists in the same universe but do not have
SM> the same basic attributes?

Horrors! What do you do in GURPS when you find out that not all your
characters have Stealth, or Fast-Talk? How can you *survive*?!? How
do you reconcile that both these characters exist in the same universe
but do not have the same basic skills?

Answer: You make it up. You look beyond the obvious and the habitual
and figure out *why* you want a Toughness attribute. You use
whatever's closest, or assign an appropriate default. Make a fair
ruling, roll the dice as necessary, and *get on with the game*.

SM> There's gotta at least be a well-defined structure for basic
SM> attributes upon which skills can be based.

Why do you need attributes at all? Why do skills need to be based on
attributes? Your unexamined assumptions are showing....

SM> Or what if FUDGE_PC1 has an IQ score, but FUDGE_PC2 does not?
SM> Again, reconciliation will need to be made at some point,
SM> obviously, when both characters encounter a situation where an
SM> IQ score would help resolve the situation.

Use whatever's closest, assign an appropriate default, or don't bother
to roll.

It seems clear from your lines of argument that you want a system with
a lot more structure than FUDGE has. That's fine -- but don't try to
project that same desire on all of us. Your tastes and preferences
are by no means universal.

For every situation in which "everybody knows" something is true, it's
easy to find a counterexample. "Everybody knows" that characters have
attributes, usually 4 to 6 of them, and they're all the same; Chuk
Goodin (presumably) and I have run games in which the attributes were
not all the same, and it was a good deal of fun. "Everybody knows"
that skills need to be based on attributes for game balance; yet FUDGE
does away with that link with great success. "Everybody knows" that
the characters in a party have to be the same power level; yet Ars
Magica and Buffy both expect players to be happy playing characters of
widely divergent power levels -- *and it works!*

Pick one of your assumptions, like the one that all characters have to
have the same set of attributes. Run an experimental game with your
players where they all have *different* sets of attributes. I expect
you'll find that it's nowhere near the hard-and-fast rule you seem to
think it is -- unless it's something your players require, which is a
whole other kettle of fish.

Charlton

[Bill Seurer]

Post by Charlton Wilbur
FUDGE_PC1 has ST, DX, IQ, HT
FUDGE_PC2 has Brawn, Power, Perception, Intuition, Knowledge, Constituion,
Charisma, Health, Agility, Fine Dexterity
Yipes almighty!!! :)

Good lord, what makes you think Fudge encourages this sort of thing?
BTW, there's a "sample" fantasy system in it that works fine and it has
specific lists of attributes, skills, and etc.

[Sonny Maou]

Post by Bill Seurer

Post by Charlton Wilbur
FUDGE_PC1 has ST, DX, IQ, HT
FUDGE_PC2 has Brawn, Power, Perception, Intuition, Knowledge, Constituion,
Charisma, Health, Agility, Fine Dexterity
Yipes almighty!!! :)

Good lord, what makes you think Fudge encourages this sort of thing?

Well, Chuk wrote this: "...just because one Fudge character has one set of
attributes doesn't mean the other ones do."

You can see how I might take that at face value. :)

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by Charlton Wilbur

Post by Bill Seurer

Post by Charlton Wilbur
FUDGE_PC1 has ST, DX, IQ, HT
FUDGE_PC2 has Brawn, Power, Perception, Intuition, Knowledge,

Constituion,

Post by Bill Seurer

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Charisma, Health, Agility, Fine Dexterity
Yipes almighty!!! :)

Good lord, what makes you think Fudge encourages this sort of thing?

Well, Chuk wrote this: "...just because one Fudge character has one set of
attributes doesn't mean the other ones do."
You can see how I might take that at face value. :)

What, on Usenet? Why? :-)


I wouldn't say that Fudge _encourages_ it exactly, but it does allow it.
Another thing you can do is just to treat high or low attributes as Gifts
and Faults -- instead of having a Toughness attribute, a Fudge PC could be
assumed to be of Fair Toughness unless he has the Gift "Tough" or the
Fault "Not Very Tough".

[Chuk Goodin]

+ Steve Jackson has played and enjoyed Fudge more than once. :-)

Is that not true of GURPS?

[Steffan O'Sullivan]

Post by Chuk Goodin

+ Steve Jackson has played and enjoyed Fudge more than once. :-)

Is that not true of GURPS?

:-) True, true. But it's well known. I was just pointing out a
lesser known fact.