There has been a number of comments on the FU Yahoo group about the results of dice rolls in FU, and what make the most interesting outcomes. Long story short, there is strong support that the plain “Yes” and “No” results are the least interesting options when the dice hit the table – the real gold is when you generate an “and” or “but” result. So here is an option for removing the boring bits and just turning your games of FU all the way up to AWESOME! I haven’t tried this out yet, so if you get a chance to, let me know how it goes.
4-point Resolution
In this hack there are only four possible die results – [Yes and], [Yes but], [No but], and [No and]. You will roll dice that have results divisible by 4, so that means d4, d8, d12 or d20. My first instinct is that d8 or d12 is probably the sweet spot, but a d4 would make things pretty quick and simple. You and your group of players will need to discuss what feels right for your game – some people don’t like d4’s (what’s wrong with them!), others would love to crack out a bag full of d12’s, or perhaps you only have d20’s laying around. It is my feeling that the type of die chosen will effect the feel of the game and will influence the effectiveness of adding dice for descriptors or the spending of FU points.
All the FU rules apply as normal, but when it is time to roll dice, use the die-type your group has chosen, and consult the following result chart:
|
Result |
D4 roll |
D8 roll |
D12 roll |
D20 roll |
|
Yes, and… |
4 |
7-8 |
10-12 |
16-20 |
|
Yes, but… |
3 |
5-6 |
7-9 |
11-15 |
|
No, but… |
2 |
3-4 |
4-6 |
6-10 |
|
No, and… |
1 |
1-2 |
1-3 |
1-5 |
I think this result chart is pretty good, and loses nothing for the removal of the standard [Yes] and [No] results. It reminds me somewhat of games like Apocalypse World / Dungeon World where you either mess up and things get worse, you get what you want – at a price, or you succeed with style. The other thing I like is that the stakes are always high – success or failure will come with a qualifier and it will either by marginal or great. I think this makes the outcomes of situations more interesting.
But wait, there’s more!
3-point Resolution
Looking at the above resolution chart, I got to thinking, “What’s the difference between a [Yes, but] and a [No, but] result?” In a lot of situations you might find it tough to differentiate between the two, particularly if you are running the game on the fly, in the middle of the action and thinking fast on your feet. The solution? Get rid of one of them! In a nod to my current RPG crush, the aforementioned Dungeon World, I decided to keep the [Yes, but] result, and came up with the following. For this hack you will need a die with results divisible by three – a d6 or d12.
Once again, use the FU rules as normal, but consult the following result chart:
|
Result |
D6 roll |
D12 roll |
|
Yes, and… |
5-6 |
9-12 |
|
Yes, but… |
3-4 |
5-8 |
|
No, and… |
1-2 |
1-4 |
I think I like this option even more than the 4-point resolution – there is something interesting happening no-matter the result, and it loses the ambiguity of the [Yes, but] – [No, but] in the middle.
This hack obviously weights things toward success for your characters, and that might not be to your liking. You could change the middle result to [No, but] to swing the pendulum the other way, or you might make the middle result more ambiguous, perhaps upping the stakes without resolving the situation. Alternatively an odd number could mean a [No, but] result while an even number is a [Yes, but] – both he d6 and d8 option accommodate that in the middle range of numbers. If you really want to stack the pressure on your players you might make the middle result a [No, but] result, but allow them to pay a FU point to switch it to a [Yes, but] result. Just chucking ideas out there.
Another alternative is to change the die roll results so that the [No, and] outcome represents half the options. This would look something like this:
|
Result |
D6 roll |
D12 roll |
|
Yes, and… |
6 |
11-12 |
|
Yes, but… |
4-5 |
7-10 |
|
No, and… |
1-3 |
1-6 |
I am not sure how I feel about this. It is still straightforward and logical, but is an even bigger departure from the “FU-norm”.
Modifiers?
If using larger dice (d8, d12 and d20), you could take the hack further, adding modifiers to die rolls. You could conceivably have descriptors apply a +1 / -1 to die rolls, rather than additional dice. Likewise, FU points or gear might apply modifiers. Rolling additional dice might be reserved for big bonuses or penalties, in the same way that Advantage / Disadvantage works in D&D Next.
Thoughts?
So, there is another way to play around with the dice in FU. What are your thoughts?
There was some discussion on the FATE list about the die mechanic for FU, and I think I recall it being said that, in Fate Core, the results are like this:
Shifts Meaning
+3 or more Yes, And
+1,+2 Yes (just a simple success)
0 No, but (or, “no, but you get a leg-up on it that might help next time”)
-2,-1 Yes, but (or, “yes, but at a cost/ with a complication”)
-3 or less No, And
You’ll notice that the order of “Yes, but” and “No, but” are the opposite of FU. The reason being “success with complications is much more interesting than just failure”. So, simple failure is replaced by success with complication. Meanwhile, a tie is replaced by a temporary failure (you didn’t succeed now, but you’ve got a bonus for the next time you try)… which adds a certain kind of flavor, where in Fate those bonuses are temporary aspects added to the target, that other people can leverage later on.
Like, you didn’t hit him, but you made him flinch. And player #2 didn’t trip him, but got him off balance. Player #3 can now stack those bonuses to their try…
On the FATE Yahoo list? I must have missed that thread! Oops!
That 0-shift outcome is kind of what I was thinking when I suggested “upping the stakes without resolving the situation”, though in my mind it doesn’t have to set the player up for future success, more it has the potential to change what is happening in the scene (for better or worse, as decided by GM and/or table).
I agree that success with complications is more interesting than failure, which is why i personally don’t mind the 3-point resolution as written – there is equal chance of bad failure, success with complication and good success.
The example you give works pretty much the same in FU – and/but provide opportunities to create conditions and details which can then be used to modify future rolls.
I was one of the ones who was involved with the discussion on Yahoo groups, thinking plain Yes/No were a bit stale. I’ve since re-thought. “No” is perfectly viable, I think…it’s still a change in the story… “Nothing further can be done by this action, boys! Plan B.” The more I have re-thought FU, the more I see how the original is so perfect!
Anyway, from the above tweaks, I dig the 3-point system, leaning toward the latter (since I too love the Dungeon World resolution mechanic).
It would be interesting to see variations of those methods (and the original method) that use Fudge dice, and/or a bell-curve shaped distribution (3d6 for example)… or even 2d6 (which is more triangular shaped than bell-curve, but still interesting).
I love the idea of hacking the dice, Nathan. I’m just considering applying modifiers to the dice but the six-sided offers less variability than d8, d12 or d20. I must consider this hack, really interesting.
Using d12 but with the original results (no and, no, no but, yes but, yes, yes and) I have regular intervals of 2 pips and, probably, I can easily apply +1/-1 modifiers.
Love it. I like the broader intervals and the uncertainty it can create, as well as the potential for modifiers.