NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/games/design/2652

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 5.0 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!picker!central.picker.com!skinner
From: [e-mail] (Andy Skinner)
Subject: FUDGE damage and scale
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: 144.54.160.4
Organization: Picker International, St. Davids
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:49:04 GMT
Lines: 77


I want to bring up the issue with which I am least comfortable in FUDGE:
scaling damage and strength.  I think FUDGE looks pretty good for combatants
of the same scale, and it should work with one combatant considered scale 1.
But I think it can have some problems with other situations.  I've told
Steffan about my concerns here, and when he gets time he'll think about it,
but I'd like to get other thoughts, as well.

In the current system, the ability to take damage lies in two traits: the
damage capacity level (Terrible ... Fair ... Superb), specifying what
distribution of damage levels (Well, Hurt, Very Hurt, Incapacitated, Near
Death, Dead) the character has, and scale, specifying how many points of
damage it takes to move to the next damage level.  (I added Well and Dead,
since it seemed to make more sense to me, since in effect, a scale 2 creature
has two Well levels--it takes 2 points of damage to get to Hurt.)

I'll assume Fair damage capacity for now, for simplicity.

In a combat between opponents of different scale, you figure armor and damage
in the scale of the smaller opponent.  A human (scale 1) fighter goes against
a 2xhuman scale monster, and one point of damage doesn't move the monster from
Well to Hurt, but halfway.  You don't get to just score the monster's damage
by checking off a damage level--you have to keep track of the half damage
level in case the monster is again hit for 1 point of damage.  This isn't
too bad, as long as we realize that it isn't quite as simple as it first
seemed, with the character sheet giving the damage levels.

Problems come in with further mixed scales.  The scale 1 fighter has a 1/2
scale hobbit friend who comes up to smack the monster in the knee.  1 point
of damage getting through armor here does 1/4 a damage level to the monster.
Now you have to keep track of the monster's damage to 1/4 damage level
resolution--it is currently at 3/4 of the way to Hurt.  This is unpleasant,
but not impossible, since 1/2, 1, and 2 scale can all work at the 1/4 scale.
But what if the hobbit had chickened out and made the pixie (scale 1/3) attack
instead, aiming a blow to the vitals under the toenail?  I guess you have to
keep track of things in 1/6 scale--you end up going for the common denominator.
There is, of course, the question of whether a pixie _can_ do 1 point of damage
to the monster, but I think it should be considered.

I can figure a common denominator, so at least I know how to implement this.
I don't like it, but I can do it.  But how do I interpret when, after the
monster eats the human, the hobbit, and the pixie, a scale 3 (or whatever)
Tyrannosaurus comes up and takes a bite of the recently stuffed monster?

Actually, I guess I just figured it out, as I wrote this.  You multiply the
damage of the creature by the scale of the attacker, and multiply the
"hit points" in the damage level by the scale of the defender.  The T. Rex
does 3 points of damage, so multiply that by 3 and apply to the scale 2
monster, so it does 1 and 1/2 damage levels.  OK, that isn't too bad, I thought
I was going to have to do fractions.  It works with the previous example,
too, as long as you keep track of a creature's hit points relative to the
smallest scale creature attacking it, and take care of common denominators
in case the 1/2 scale hobbit and the 1/3 scale pixie are ganging up to
beat up something.

Now, just because I've figured out how to do it doesn't mean I think it even
resembles what FUDGE ought to be.  I like multiplying the defender's damage
levels by scale, since that is equivalent to and easier than dividing damage
done to it by its scale.  And I like multiplying attacker's damage by
attacker's scale, as long as I don't have to work with fractions.  I just
am a bit uncomfortable with changing an attacker's damage levels by who
is attacking.  I guess it would be easier if we said that all scales would
be 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4.  Scale 1 would be whatever is most common.  That
would get rid of the common denominator problem.

This is all pretty complicated.  Maybe the rest of you don't see this as
a problem.  I'd like some feedback on whether the scale thing really works.
Now that I have figured out how to implement it, I might try it on the
simulator.

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

andy