Forgotten Futures Rules Update

Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

This is mainly a question for those familiar with the Forgotten Futures
rules etc.

The next release of the RPG (the tenth) will incorporate a re-write of
the rules. Mostly things will remain the same, but I want to get rid of
some rather clunky text, clarify a few points that aren't clear, and
incorporate some stuff from the various worldbooks that seems to be
generally useful; things like the melodrama rules from FF VI, the magic
rules from FF IX, some gadgets from various worldbooks, etc. I don't
want to make any fundamental changes that would make old material
incompatible with the new rules.

Having said this, one fairly important change that's been suggested is
to get rid of the attacking / defending table that's used to resolve
most situations, replacing it with a rule that's something like this:

Roll 2D6
* Add Difficulty or the opponent's skill
* Subtract the skill or characteristic you're using
* If the modified result is 7 or less you succeed
* If the Difficulty is 8 or less and you roll 2 you succeed.
* 12 is always a failure

This is essentially the rule behind the table, and after you've played
the game a while you tend to know what to roll without referring to it.
Stating it implicitly, rather than using the table, won't require any
changes to the system, apart from changes to the wording at a few points
in the actual rules.

My question then is; do you think that this change is a good idea? And
if I do make this change, should I leave the table and stuff related to
it as an appendix, or leave it out completely?
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
7 answers Last reply
More about forgotten futures rules update
  1. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In article <GswQw4TBbb5BFwlL@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a>,
    Marcus L. Rowland <forgottenfutures@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    >Having said this, one fairly important change that's been suggested is
    >to get rid of the attacking / defending table that's used to resolve
    >most situations, replacing it with a rule that's something like this:
    >
    >Roll 2D6
    >* Add Difficulty or the opponent's skill
    >* Subtract the skill or characteristic you're using
    >* If the modified result is 7 or less you succeed
    >* If the Difficulty is 8 or less and you roll 2 you succeed.
    >* 12 is always a failure

    Makes sense, though subtracting one's own skill always seems
    counterintuitive to me. How about inverting it: roll, add skill,
    subtract difficulty, try to get 8+ (which now that I come to think of
    it is classic Traveller's mechanic); automatically succeed on a 12 if
    the difficulty is 8-; automatically fail on a 2.

    Or to keep the "low rolls good" approach say "roll, add difficulty,
    subtract 7, try to get your skill or lower".

    >My question then is; do you think that this change is a good idea? And
    >if I do make this change, should I leave the table and stuff related to
    >it as an appendix, or leave it out completely?

    I think it's a good idea; I'd stick the table in the main text, though,
    as an alternative resolution method, because some people are always
    going to be happier with a table than with addition and subtraction.

    R
  2. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    Roger Burton West a écrit :

    > Makes sense, though subtracting one's own skill always seems
    > counterintuitive to me. How about inverting it: roll, add skill,
    > subtract difficulty, try to get 8+ (which now that I come to think of
    > it is classic Traveller's mechanic); automatically succeed on a 12 if
    > the difficulty is 8-; automatically fail on a 2.
    >
    > Or to keep the "low rolls good" approach say "roll, add difficulty,
    > subtract 7, try to get your skill or lower".

    Note that all these are identical to the simple "roll, add skill, try to
    get difficulty or higher", but they involve one more operation (and a
    substraction). Why don't use the simpliest rule ?
    Essentially, you'll just have to translate your difficulties by 7.

    RM.
  3. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In message <41e64d15$0$19577$636a15ce@news.free.fr>, Romain Mouton
    <mouton.romain@free.fr> writes
    >Roger Burton West a écrit :
    >
    >> Makes sense, though subtracting one's own skill always seems
    >> counterintuitive to me. How about inverting it: roll, add skill,
    >> subtract difficulty, try to get 8+ (which now that I come to think of
    >> it is classic Traveller's mechanic); automatically succeed on a 12 if
    >> the difficulty is 8-; automatically fail on a 2.
    >> Or to keep the "low rolls good" approach say "roll, add difficulty,
    >> subtract 7, try to get your skill or lower".
    >
    >Note that all these are identical to the simple "roll, add skill, try
    >to get difficulty or higher", but they involve one more operation (and
    >a substraction). Why don't use the simpliest rule ?
    >Essentially, you'll just have to translate your difficulties by 7.
    >
    >RM.

    Because there are about 500,000 words of Forgotten Futures material on
    line and on CD-ROM, and I REALLY don't want to rewrite all of it.
    --
    Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
    LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
    Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
    "Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
  4. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In message <Xns95DE4FF08BB65rsingers@IP-Hidden>, Robert Singers
    <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> writes
    >Out from under a rock popped Marcus L. Rowland and said
    >
    >> Because there are about 500,000 words of Forgotten Futures material on
    >> line and on CD-ROM, and I REALLY don't want to rewrite all of it.
    >
    >But you *said* up thread that it was a complete rewrite. So it's really a
    >complete not complete rewrite? :-)
    >

    A rewrite of the rules. But I'm not going to rewrite nine worldbooks, a
    couple of dozen adventures, etc...
    --
    Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
    LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
    Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
    "Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
  5. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped Marcus L. Rowland and said

    > Because there are about 500,000 words of Forgotten Futures material on
    > line and on CD-ROM, and I REALLY don't want to rewrite all of it.

    But you *said* up thread that it was a complete rewrite. So it's really a
    complete not complete rewrite? :-)

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  6. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In article <GswQw4TBbb5BFwlL@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a>,
    "Marcus L. Rowland" <forgottenfutures@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    > This is mainly a question for those familiar with the Forgotten Futures
    > rules etc.
    >
    > The next release of the RPG (the tenth) will incorporate a re-write of
    > the rules. Mostly things will remain the same, but I want to get rid of
    > some rather clunky text, clarify a few points that aren't clear, and
    > incorporate some stuff from the various worldbooks that seems to be
    > generally useful; things like the melodrama rules from FF VI, the magic
    > rules from FF IX, some gadgets from various worldbooks, etc. I don't
    > want to make any fundamental changes that would make old material
    > incompatible with the new rules.

    Cheers! Bravo!

    >
    > Having said this, one fairly important change that's been suggested is
    > to get rid of the attacking / defending table that's used to resolve
    > most situations, replacing it with a rule that's something like this:
    >
    > Roll 2D6
    > * Add Difficulty or the opponent's skill
    > * Subtract the skill or characteristic you're using
    > * If the modified result is 7 or less you succeed
    > * If the Difficulty is 8 or less and you roll 2 you succeed.
    > * 12 is always a failure
    >
    > This is essentially the rule behind the table, and after you've played
    > the game a while you tend to know what to roll without referring to it.
    > Stating it implicitly, rather than using the table, won't require any
    > changes to the system, apart from changes to the wording at a few points
    > in the actual rules.
    >
    > My question then is; do you think that this change is a good idea? And
    > if I do make this change, should I leave the table and stuff related to
    > it as an appendix, or leave it out completely?

    For the mathematically challenged, I'd keep the table. Also, doing math
    on the fly in a game can slow things down. I know, I know, the state of
    education these days, but it is something to consider.

    --
    The Kedamono Dragon
    Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
    http://www.ahtg.net
    Have Mac, will Compute

    Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
    http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
  7. Archived from groups: uk.games.roleplay,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In message <GswQw4TBbb5BFwlL@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a>, Marcus L. Rowland
    <forgottenfutures@ntlworld.com> writes
    > should I leave the table and stuff related to it as an appendix, or
    >leave it out completely?

    I've decided to keep the table in an appendix - there are some minor
    statistical differences between results from the two methods, as it
    turns out, so I think I need to offer both.
    --
    Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
    LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
    Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
    "Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games