Subjective Fudge of Zo

Fudge Dice

dice by Eric S Chernenkoff.jpg Fudge Dice

This is a combination of subjective #Fudge](Fudge) and the [PDQ](../wiki?action=edit;id=PDQ "Click to edit this page") rules used in [ZorcererOfZo. We’ll be using Fudge descriptions and four Fudge dice: |Superb|+3| |Great|+2| |Good|+1| |Fair|0| |Poor|-1|

Character Creation*: Use three (or more?) points to buy ranks in any Quality you like, and take one Poor Quality. So you could have three Good Qualities, a Great and a Good quality, or a Superb quality, and you’d always have a Poor Quality that goes with that. Here’s an example of a knight with three Good Qualities:

*Sir Liam of Azul.* Knight: Good (+1), Outdoorsman: Good (+1), True Love for Princess Gwen: Good (+1), Singer: Poor (-1).

Conflict*: Both parties roll, adding the result to the Quality they are using (and narrating how they use it), and the difference between the two numbers indicates the Damage the loser takes. In a tie, both take a Damage of one. Damage means that you temporarily decrease your Qualities by the appropriate amount, distributing the Damage as you see fit.

When you take damage and all your Qualities are Poor, you *pass out*.

The *first Quality to be reduced* in a conflict should result in a *story hook*.

The reason Sir Liam constantly has to ride off to rescue Princess Gwen from dragons, ogres and enchantments is that he consistently uses his True Love for Princess Gwen Quality to absorb the first Damage Rank he takes in combat. – The Zorcerer of Zo, p. 41

Playing in a fairy tale has the benefit that weapons and armor are not taken into account. If they are important to you, invest in an appropriate Quality. Similarly, there’s no need for hit points, wounds, and so on.

There is no need to make a roll if the difficulty of a task is below your Quality rank: If you’re Good, you never have to roll to see whether you fail at a Fair task.

Monsters are simple to do. Just pick some Qualities. Example monster:

*Troll.* Fangs: Good. Bridge Power: Good.

After a conflict all damage instantly disappears. Loosers are at the mercy of victors.

The Poor Quality has pure entertainment value. Imagine Sir Liam joining a singing contest. Or singing to the dragon. Then roll some dice. 😄

What about multiple opponents against one? Cowards! The defender rolls his dice, adding his chosen Quality, and narrating it. All the attackers roll their dice, adding their chosen Quality, and narrating it. Take the highest result on either side, ignore all other results, and compare the numbers and apply Damage as usual. If the attackers take Damage, they can distribute it between them at will.

Comments

(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)

⁂

Y’know, I *really* need to try this out........

– GreyWulf 2008-05-07 16:13 UTC

GreyWulf

---

I am failing to see how I can min-max my character...

– Adrian 2008-05-07 19:06 UTC

---

Haha. Well, I cleaned it up in response to the thread What rules light fantasy system would you recommend for 'winging it'? on EN World. It’s basically my reply to GreyWulf’s M20. 😄

What rules light fantasy system would you recommend for 'winging it'?

EN World

GreyWulf

M20

Little did I know at the time that I was surrounded by a bunch of min-maxing powergamers! 👌

– Alex Schroeder 2008-05-07 22:22 UTC

Alex Schroeder

---

“I’m sorry Rapunzel baby... I had a big think on our relationship while I was out slaying trolls, and it occurred to me that you’re a prissy stuck-up tart who spends far too much money on hair extensions. Have a nice life okay? I’m off to find me a dragon.”

– Marco 2008-05-08 06:50 UTC

---

The system reminds me a bit of the copy of Wushu Open that I downloaded (it’s free). It is also very simple, and it is one of those games that grants players a lot of narrative control. Everything the players describe happens; the dice just decide to what extent those actions affect the outcome, or how well (or poorly) those descriptions play out.

– Adrian 2008-05-08 13:29 UTC