Random Fudge Topic: Hit Location

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?

Random Fudge Topic: Combat and Wounding Example

I have made a pledge to myself and all my readers (real and imaginary) to post at least one article each month to each of my blogs (as you may or may not be aware), but over the years, this blog (Creative Reckoning) has gradually become the most challenging to support in terms of viable topics (from my perspective). And then I had an idea: Perhaps I could tackle a random topic about Fudge. Older editions of Fudge even have the rules numbered, which makes the randomization effortless. So, I'll look at the contents page, roll an appropriate die, and that will be the topic of the article. I'll roll for specific sections and subsections as necessary.

Let's go!

Although I prefer the Fudge Expanded Edition, I'll be using the 1995 rules since they are freely available and form the basis of the current Fudge SRD (also known as the FUDGE System Reference Document). There are seven parts, so I'll roll my trusty d7. The result is...

Chapter 4, Combat. There are eight sections, so I'll roll a d8, with the result of...

Section 4.7, Combat and Wounding Example (q.v.). The example uses simultaneous combat rounds, wound levels, Damage Capacity, wound factors, grazing, and the damage die roll.

That's a fair number of rules to juggle in an action scene. My only issue, though, is with the necessity of calculating offensive damage factors and defensive damage factors in an effort to run combat more smoothly, which requires you to pause in what ought to be a fast-paced and exciting part of the game. If there are more than two combatants (a mêlée if you will), you will potentially need to calculate the offensive and defensive factors between every combatant on one side versus every combatant on another side (or even multiple sides). You could, of course, wait until each confrontation starts before calculating the factors, but you will still be spending time calculating them in the middle of the action. To my mind, this is not ideal. It's tedious and veers too close to abstractions for my taste. Other than that, the example is O.K. It describes a combat scene using specific rules options. They might not be the same the options I would choose, but it serves its purpose.

Do you have any opinions or insights? If so, leave a comment.

Locational Wound Tracks

The wound system in Fudge has always fluctuated — for me — between too much and too little, and I have tinkered with it in many different ways over the years. (One of which, dealing with pulp cliffhangers, has been lost to the Internet Void.) Now, I am grasping once again for that elusive perfect wound system. Will this one meet my needs?

I am calling this method Locational Wound Tracks. Whenever an opponent is successfully struck, the location is noted whether by called shot, random determination, or a default target area (such as the torso). Each location has its own wound track. For the sake of simplicity, the locations are left leg, right leg, left arm, right arm, torso, and head. Damage (and its effect) is applied normally, but for that location only. If, for example, the right arm is Hurt, any action requiring the use of the right arm receives a −1 penalty. An Incapacitating wound will render an arm or leg useless, but such a wound to the torso will cause one to collapse and the same wound to the head will cause one to lose consciousness. Near Death wounds will likewise vary in severity and effect depending on the location affected.

The upshot of this is that wounds are not regarded as equal. A wound to the leg will not have exactly the same effect as a wound to the head. The torso is more likely to be armored than the arms. And a combatant might choose to aim a blow at the least protected area of an opponent.

As for healing, one could rule that a successful result on a healing skill heals all wounds the same number of levels, or one could require a separate roll for each wound treated. Healing through rest heals all wounds at the same rate (one wound level per week of rest).

Pertinent rules links

• Wound Levels
• Recording Wounds
• Hit Location

[The above is similar to something I wrote in 2005 (Alternate Hit Location), but I think it's a bit more straightforward and, therefore, easier to implement.]

Universal Called Shot Table

When your role-playing game of choice lacks rules for called shots, or its rules are cumbersome or unsatisfactory concerning the deliberate targeting of specific hit locations, consider using the Universal Called Shot Table. Utilizing only a single Fudge die, this simple option can be used with any role-playing game. Anytime a character makes a successful attack on an opponent and decides to hit a specific location, merely roll 1dF (one Fudge die) and consult the table below:

Universal Called Shot Table
1dF	Result
+	Attacker names hit location struck.
0	Defender names hit location struck.
-	Miss!

As you can see, there is an added element of risk when attempting to make difficult shots. For a 1 in 3 chance of hitting one’s opponent exactly where desired, the price is a 1 in 3 chance of missing the opponent entirely.

This is an option for reflecting the difficulty of hitting small targets in the midst of combat, which at the same time preserves the possibility of causing the full range of damage, from a graze to a lethal wound, by separating the called shot mechanics from the attack and damage roll mechanics.

I haven’t playtested this yet, since I just thought of it. If you try it, please let me know!

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 7 May 2011.]

Offensive Damage Factors Compared

One thing I noticed when I added Fudge July 4, 1993 Version to the Fudge Rules page is that the suggested offensive damage factors for muscle-powered weapons have changed over the years, and neither match my own preferences (q.v.). For instance, in the Fudge July 4, 1993 Version, Section 4.72, Objective Damage System, we have:

+0 for no weapon, no Martial Art skill.
+1 Martial Art skill at Fair or better, no weapon.
+1 for small weapon (knife, etc.)
+2 for average-sized weapon (sword, axe, spear, bow, etc.).
+3 for large weapon (polearm, battleaxe, etc.).
+1 for sharp weapon (additive with other weapon damage).

This suggests (appropriately, in my opinion) that damage for weapons begins at +1. This makes intuitive sense, as I have argued before. What may be more controversial for some, however, is that an unarmed combatant with reasonable martial arts training is equal to an armed combatant.

Things take a strange twist in the Fudge 1995 Edition where, in Section 4.54, Sample Wound Factors List, we find this:

-1 for no weapon, not using a Martial Art skill.
+0 Martial Art skill, or for small weapons (blackjack, knife, brass knuckles, sling, thick boots if kicking, etc.).
+1 for medium-weight one-handed weapons (billy club, machete, shortsword, epee, hatchet, rock, etc.).
+2 for large one-handed weapons (broadsword, axe, large club, etc.), or for light two-handed weapons (spear, bow, etc.).
+3 for most two-handed weapons (polearm, two-handed sword, battleaxe, etc.).
+1 for sharpness (add to other weapon damage: knife becomes +1, shortsword +2, broadsword +3, greatsword +4, etc.).

First, the categories have been pulled back by a factor of 1: weaponless unskilled attacks that were +0 are now -1; small weapons or weaponless martial arts attacks that were +1 are now +0, and so on. Second, large weapons have been divided into two categories consisting of large one-handed weapons and light two-handed weapons. Third, another category has been added consisting of "most two-handed weapons." This version has remained unchanged in the Fudge Expanded Edition and the Fudge Anniversary Edition.

Essentially, some "average-sized weapons" (sword, axe, etc.) as they were formerly described have become "medium-weight weapons" (shortsword, hatchet, etc.), and some have been upgraded to "large one-handed weapons" (broadsword, axe, etc.) or "light two-handed weapons" (bow, spear, etc.). The additional category of "most two-handed weapons" (polearm, battleaxe) would have needed to move up to +4 in the earlier version to accommodate the expansion of "average-sized" into "medium weight" and "large one-handed"/"light two-handed."

The good news from the second version is that weaponless unskilled attacks have been lowered to -1, which represents a significant penalty. The bad news (for some) is that weaponless martial arts attacks are still equal to small weapons. Even worse, however, is the fact that weapons start at +0, which is a little hard to grasp when one considers one's chances in a fight with or without a weapon. A weapon, no matter how ordinary, ought to confer some advantage, and an offensive damage factor of +0 fails to convey that.

In both versions, there is something that seems a wee bit off-kilter, and my own version is an attempt to correct that sense of rules wooziness. Here it is with new parenthetical examples:

-1 unarmed, untrained (unsuited for combat)
+0 unarmed, trained (competent martial artist, Eastern or Western)
+1 small weapon (knife, brass knuckles, sap, etc.)
+2 medium weapon (shortsword, nightstick, tomahawk, etc.)
+3 large weapon (broadsword, mace, axe, etc.)
+1 sharpness
+1 two-handed (greatsword, polearm, etc.)

So, a greatsword, being a large, sharp, two-handed weapon, would have an ODF of +5, whereas a shortsword, being a medium, sharp, one-handed weapon, would have an ODF of +3. It makes hand-to-hand combat deadlier, but this can be offset if necessary by altering the wound tracks (a very easy task).

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 20 February 2012.]

Offensive Damage Factors Considered

One of the things I like about Fudge is the simplicity of determining how much damage a mêlée weapon causes. I've seen it boiled down to its bare essence in a variety of ways, but I think this version is the best:

-1 unarmed, untrained
+0 unarmed, trained
+1 small weapon
+2 medium weapon
+3 large weapon
+1 sharpness
+1 two-handed

So, if a character enters combat, you ask yourself these questions:

If the character is unarmed, is he or she formally trained or self-taught in unarmed combat? (Apply +0 if the former or -1 if the latter.)

If the character is armed, is the weapon small, medium, or large? (Apply +1, +2, or +3 respectively.) If it is sharp, add +1. If it is wielded with two hands, add +1.

Example: A rock is a small blunt weapon (ODF +1). A shillelagh is a medium blunt weapon (+2 medium = ODF +2). A knife is a small sharp weapon (+1 small +1 sharpness = ODF +2). A gladius is a medium sharp weapon (+2 medium +1 sharpness = ODF +3). A longsword is a large sharp weapon (+3 large +1 sharpness = ODF +4). A claymore is a large, sharp, two-handed weapon (+3 large +1 sharpness +1 two-handed = ODF +5).

This can easily be used to extrapolate the damage factors of everyday items such as a bowling ball (medium blunt object; ODF +2), a brick (small blunt object; ODF +1), a spade (large, blunt, two-handed tool; ODF +4), or a sickle (medium sharp tool; ODF +3).

This presents a quandary. Why would anyone choose to learn a specific weapon skill if Brawling can give one the ability to use just about anything as effectively? [Brawling being the skill of untrained fighting, armed or unarmed.] We know that household objects are not as effective as actual weapons, but how can this fact be reflected without complicating the simple formula of which we are so fond? Since the ordinary object is inferior to the weapon possessing similar qualities by virtue of its different design purposes, I think the best way to reflect this is to impose an initiative penalty to the wielder of the ordinary object whenever the two are matched. This would only work if alternating combat turns are being used. If simultaneous combat rounds are being used, one could rule that the wielder of the actual weapon gains a +1 mêlée modifier when engaged against a brawler attacking with a chair or a walking stick or any other object.

I was thinking about this as I was adding the description to the Brawling skill in Optimum Skills for Fudge [see the Ultimate List of Skills instead]. The unarmed combat skills are the only skills for which I have not yet written descriptions, and Brawling, being the most basic of all fighting techniques, is the first I have undertaken. On the table above, Brawling qualifies as unarmed, no formal combat training, and thus provides a -1 offensive damage factor [except when employing an ordinary object as a weapon]. Any other form of unarmed combat requires some amount of formal training and provides a +0 offensive damage factor. Special attack techniques will bestow a +1 offensive damage factor. To keep things simple, I think the difference between most of the martial arts will be style rather than effect, leaving the description of specific techniques to players if they so desire (and providing some examples in the skill descriptions). Certain skills may have exceptions, such as Aikido, Judo, Jujutsu, and Wrestling, which are more focused on disabling opponents than injuring or killing them (depending on the style and the individual practitioner, of course).

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 5 February 2008 and 15 April 2011 as two articles.]

How to Juggle Hit Location Rules in Fudge

As I mentioned previously (q.v.), I like to use different rules options depending on my mood in any given session. Some options are too good not to use, so I try to use them all. Another combat-related example is hit locations. I like called attacks. I also like random hit locations. I also like hits that default to the torso. When I GM, I use all three options.

The following rule builds upon my own Alternate Section 4.35, Hit Location.

All attacks are made against random hit locations unless the attacker declares that a hit location is being targeted (known as a called attack).

A called attack must succeed by the required minimum relative degree in order to make contact with the targeted hit location. If the attack succeeds, but not by the minimum relative degree, then the defender chooses the hit location.

If the non-player character combatants are numerous and/or minor, the GM may rule that all attacks that are not called attacks are made against their torso hit location instead of rolling for random hit locations.

[Edited from an article originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 7 March 2011.]

How to Juggle Combat Rules in Fudge

One of my quirks as a Fudge GM is that I enjoy shifting from one rules option to another depending on circumstances and general mood. For example, I see no reason not to use story elements, simultaneous combat rounds, and alternating combat turns at different points during the same session as long as it feels right. There is, indeed, a method to my madness, and it occurred to me that it could be codified quite easily. Here, then, is my very simple solution for incorporating the major combat subsystems into a single system. I'll tentatively call it the combat option selection system.

The rules from which I am drawing are in Section 4.2, Melee Combat of the Fudge 1995 Edition.

When combat seems imminent, the first step in the combat option selection system is to roll for the initiative. Different methods for determining initiative are described in Section 4.23, Alternating Combat Turns, but in this iteration initiative is determined before the combat option is selected.

If the initiative roll is a tie between the two opposing parties (whether they are individuals or groups), then the fight will be resolved using simultaneous combat rounds (see Section 4.22).

If the initiative roll results in a winner and loser, then the fight will be resolved using alternating combat turns, with the winner making the first attack (see Section 4.23).

Regardless of the result of the initiative roll, if both parties are agreeable, the fight may be resolved using story elements instead (see Section 4.21).

Optionally, the winner of the initiative roll may state whether alternating combat turns or story elements will be used for the fight.

Not only is this system completely intuitive (ties are fought simultaneously; non-ties favor the quick and the bold), but it gives everyone the chance to use the combat rules they like best.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 4 March 2011.]