Hi! Thanks for giving my silly build a try.

Combat in the Essentials version is different than combat in the Ultimate or earlier versions of EZFudge. That's due to two things. First was a philosophy change on my part ... I decided I wanted less rolling and only the player rolling. Once I'd settled that, the other change to make EZFudge fight rules more like stock Fudge followed.

SM and FM are Success Margin and Failure Margin. They are defined on the basic action flowchart and are the two aspects of what stock Fudge calls Relative Degree. Basically they just say how well or poorly the action turned out.

Lastly, in the one-roll world of melee fighting, if the PC has a Success Margin result, the PC could injure the foe (weapon and foe defense factors permitting). If the PC ends up on the Failure Margin side, then the foe may injure them (again defense and foe weapons factors will settle the result).

(All of these are easily changed, of course, if you find they don't suit you. The Fudge SRD has all the guidance for that.)

Hope that helps. Happy playing!
Bob P

Thanks, Bob!
That did help a lot, thank you for the clarification! As far as one-roll combat, I'm currently thinking up a campaign/rule set for a campaign similar to "Avatar: the Last Airbender," so I'm thinking I'll use all the mechanics you shared, but have the characters roll for attack and for defense- I think the players will enjoy narrating their attacks as well as defenses. (In most other settings I'm sure I'd use the one-time combat system- it's very clean!)

I'm really enjoying the EZFudge booklet, it's a true gem. Thanks for your work!!

Hello again!

In reviewing the mechanics further, I was curious about a few things:
-in the "Melee Phase" flow chart, can/should the diamond/box between "Character Action" and "Foe Difficulty" be bypassed? Or should the arrow for "No" be directed to the bubble for "Character Would level =...."? I was thinking this, because if a player gets a -1 total to their action, wouldn't that mean the foe hits them?
-how did are the tactics intended to work if a player takes an with a defensive tactic modifier (DTM) and a foe takes an action with an offensive tactic modifier (OTM)?
I was thinking the bonus for players would be subtracted when calculating the character wound level (for example: taking "Total Defend" +2 would be subtracted from the wound level). Conversely, if a foe takes "Total Attack," the attack bonus (+2) will be added to the character wound level.
-what does ACT stand for in the Melee Phase flow chart?

Hello again!

In reviewing the mechanics further, I was curious about a few things:
-in the "Melee Phase" flow chart, can/should the diamond/box between "Character Action" and "Foe Difficulty" be bypassed? Or should the arrow for "No" be directed to the bubble for "Character Would level =...."? I was thinking this, because if a player gets a -1 total to their action, wouldn't that mean the foe hits them?
-how did are the tactics intended to work if a player takes an with a defensive tactic modifier (DTM) and a foe takes an action with an offensive tactic modifier (OTM)?
I was thinking the bonus for players would be subtracted when calculating the character wound level (for example: taking "Total Defend" +2 would be subtracted from the wound level). Conversely, if a foe takes "Total Attack," the attack bonus (+2) will be added to the character wound level.
-what does ACT stand for in the Melee Phase flow chart?

Hi! Nice to see you and thanks for writing!

The easy one: ACT tells the number of non-combat simple actions you can squeeze into a melee phase along with fighting: a short move, a simple task if a hand is free.

The rest: big BIG logic errors exposed. Thank you! I'll be back when I have those handled.

Cheers, Bob

Hi! I'm back! Thanks for waiting.

Well, after a morning of number-crunching and brow-furrowing, I have to let go of the entire notion of "choosing tactics" in the classic Fudge sense. It just doesn't fit in a one-roll, player-focused environment. The gamemaster already has the controls to assign disadvantage when appropriate, so she can use that tool to make the mods fit the described scene.

With that out of the way, Melee phase looks more like the basic action it's supposed to be. One wrinkle. Classic Fudge had a requirement that the Action result had to be Poor or better to even have a chance to do damage. In a one-roll environment, then, we have three possible outcomes: Both fighters are Terrible or worse and no damage done. In any other case, it resolves out normally and one side or the other gets damage (even if only a scratch).

I've submitted the "3.0" version of the file for addition to the file library here, and I've updated it at my personal site nvdaydreamer.neocities.org.

Thank you for the thought-provoking questions! I hope my design mistakes haven't hurt your play too much.

Best wishes, Bob

They haven't hurt my game play, I was just reviewing them in prep for a game I was hoping to run soon!

Thanks so much for the clarification. I do have another question now regarding the possibility that both combatants do poorly:
So if a character rolls to melee attack and adds their trait bonus and the result is less than -1, that means nobody takes damage? At first glance, this seems odd to me because if a player rolls/attacks poorly enough, shouldn't that mean the opponent does even worse damage to the character? Additionally, if I have a character that is a great (+3) swordsman, wouldn't it be expected that blows will (almost) always be exchanged? (Because even if he rolls a value of -4, then adding three would result in -1.)

Thanks for the quick responses! Also, I couldn't access your site "nvdaydreamer.neocities.org" in order to access the new file, did I maybe type something up wrong? (Or do you know if the file will be posted on this website soon)?

Thanks again.

Hi! The site error is 'cause I misspelled the address. nvdaydreamr.neocities.org is correct.

So to break it all back down: Trait (and mods) + Roll = Action. If Action is Terrible or worse, that actor can't do damage.  The Foe almost always won't be there, unless they've got injuries or other mods bringing the trait way down. The Character has those same risks but also that's where the die roll is applied ('cause the player makes the roll for the whole scene).

And now that I talk it through out loud, how I'm implementing that restriction ALSO doesn't make sense in a one-roll environment. The character shouldn't be penalized just because the player is making the roll. But I still think Terrible shouldn't be allowed to do damage.

What do we think of this?
Character Action = Trait plus Mods. If Terrible or worse, note the Foe cannot take damage
Foe Difficulty = Trait plus Mods. Again if Terrible or worse, note the Character cannot take damage. (If both, that's all for their exchange, next!)
NOW roll and add to Character Action. Compare Action to Difficulty as before for the net result.

AND I have another correction I need to make. As I have it now, "ties" go down the "Foe Injury" path and they should not. Per Classic Fudge 4.22, a tie in actions is a stand-off, no effects either direction.

Hmm. I might have room for the Scale mods from 4.22 now. I think those could be useful.

Whoo. Well, I'll see if I can get those corrections up tonight! Thank you! I appreciate the questions and challenges.

Best wishes, Bob P

Thanks for the site address again, I'm happy to have the updated PDF in my repertoire!

I've also done some thinking about the "tactics" section myself. I think you were on the right path, and the idea is excellent. One simple fix to the logic flaw would be have the bonuses (positive or negative) be applied only when calculating the damage dealt?

For example:
Charles, a good swordsman (+2) is dueling Fontini, an NPC great swordsman (+3). Charles wants to be on the defensive side of things, since he knows Fontini is a better swordsman, so he chooses the "Cautious" tactic (-1 to INJ but +1 to CPD). Charles rolls "good" (+2), so he would deal Fontini damage equal to: SM + INJ - foe CPD, where the Success Margin = +1, and INJ = (his normal INJ) - 1.

Say Fontini counters the next exchange of blows in an "aggressive" manner (+1 to INJ but -1 to CPD). Charles rolls "poor" (-2) this round for a total roll of +1, so Charles would sustain damage equal to: FM + foe INJ - CPD, where the Failure Margin = +2, and foe INJ = (Fontini's normal INJ) +1.

I think this is one approach to the problem, though I know it isn't perfect, since it doesn't alter the likelihood of landing the blow on an opponent.

What do you think?