Rolled 1d7 with a result of 4: Chapter 4, Combat
Rolled 1d8 with a result of 3: Section 4.3, Melee Combat Actions
Rolled 1d6 with a result of 5: Section 4.35, Hit Location
[This article references the Fudge 1995 Edition rules. Specifically, Section 4.35, Hit Location.]
Regardless of game system or specific rules options (or even in the absence of a dedicated rule on the subject), hit locations are important. Even if the GM or player decides arbitrarily where an attack struck and no specific effect is involved, it helps with the visualization of the scene and, consequently, with remembering the scene. It grounds it as a significant moment in the characters' lives. It facilitates immersion in the imaginary world.
Hit locations covered by rules that involve real consequences for characters contribute even more to the game and the imaginary world. This section of the Fudge rules offers two ways to handle hit locations.
In the first, "simplest," method, the player describes the attack and the GM interprets the player's success based on the relative degree by which the attack roll succeeded. Presumably, if the attacker was aiming for an opponent's eye and won with a mere +4 relative degree, the opponent would suffer damage generally, but would not suffer injury to, or loss of, the eye. If the essence of this method is "the better the relative degree, the better the location of the blow," then the GM will be tasked with trying to assess the minimum relative degree necessary for every possible hit location and where the attack actually lands if it falls short (and whether it varies depending on the actual relative degree achieved). This method can work, and work well with the right GM, but it is not my preference.
(I feel compelled to confess here that in most of my experience running games without dedicated hit location rules, I usually only mentioned them for descriptive effect, and I reserved extreme wounds for the killing blow.)
In the second "more complicated system," the attacker announces the intended hit location prior to rolling, the GM determines the minimum relative degree required to hit the desired location, and, if the minimum relative degree is equalled or exceeded, the desired location is hit. If the attack succeeds without reaching the minimum relative degree, the defender chooses the hit location. The damaged body part is then designated Scratched, Hurt, or Incapacitated.
This is a very elegant way to handle hit locations and I approve of it... with one reservation. If the ability to hit a specific location requires a minimum relative degree, then successful called shots will only inflict serious injuries and unsuccessful called shots that manage to hit will only cause Scratches. This defies verisimilitude. In reality and fiction, sometimes you hit the mark, but without the necessary force to inflict a real wound; sometimes you miss the mark, but the wound you inflict elsewhere is severe. This rule could significantly restrict the range of real possibilities, creating counterintuitive guardrails on both gameplay and suspension of disbelief. In other words, it lends itself to moments that just feel wrong, which is not in the spirit of Fudge.
The only way to fix this problem without inventing novel rules, as far as I can tell, is to limit the impact of relative degree to attack accuracy (hit location proximity), and divorce it from damage calculation. Damage, in this case, would be assessed only by the form of attack and/or the weapon wielded. In other words, relative degree determines how accurately you hit, and your weapon (or technique) determines how much damage you cause to that area.
The other solution is one I have used in the (hopefully) eventually-to-be-published rules of Omnia. In this method, the attacker makes one attack roll if they are aiming generally (at the torso or a randomly determined hit location), or two attack rolls if they are making a called attack. In the latter case, the first roll determines if the attack is successful generally. This is the roll that generates the difference, or the relative degree, that contributes to the attack's damage. The second roll determines if the targeted location is hit. If that roll succeeds, it is hit. If it fails, the defender decides which location is hit. The damage could be light or severe regardless of the location struck, which means the defender is potentially making a more meaningful decision when maneuvering to withstand a blow. This solves the problem, but it may also be a problem if you cannot abide more than one roll per attack.
That's how I see it. How do you see it?
