Essentially. Though that might just be being faithful to the source material.

In cinematic depiction of Toughness, the attribute is often depicted as an ability to keep going despite wounds. 

In Fudge 10th Anniversary Edition, Rasputin is cited as an example of what I think a Very Tough to Stop/Kill character would be.  When Scratched, he acted Unhurt; when Hurt, he acted Scratched ... when "Dead", he still needed to be drowned.  That's Tough!  Other examples:  Think Monty Python's Black Knight.  Or near dead Glen Campbell in True Grit. 

Although tinkering with the ability to sustain  more wounds (adding stress boxes to the damage track levels) would delay multiple lesser wounds from acting like a more severe wound, it would not prevent a single very substantial wound from taking its negative effects on  all the character's "logically affected traits" and thus slowing the character down as would be expected of your run-of-the-mill, not-so-Tough hero.  In my mind, it is perfectly conceivable that a Tough hero will die of fatal wounds in the next scene, but not before he completes his world-saving task if he has anything to say about it.  A frail little-old-lady in a wheelchair can be Tough (in contradiction to the OGL definition from which you were working to convert where "increased stamina"="extra hit points").  Literally "stamina" better equates to "endurance", the ability to withstand suffering.

Therefore, I am most in support of your "ignore XXX damage penalty" option, although I would be inclined to add a phrase like "until necessity passes or Willpower gives out".   If Toughness was a Terrible-Superb attribute, perhaps Good allows ignoring Hurt, Great allows ignoring Hurt/Very Hurt, and Superb allows ignoring Hurt/Very Hurt/Incapaciated (and Rasputin was Legendary?) --- and Terrible acts Hurt after a single Scratch (or if he thinks he might get scratched), Poor acts Hurt on the second Scratch, and Mediocre reacts on the last (third or latter if the GM allows more) Scratch on his wound track.  But I think that a Tough guy still needs to heal his wounds as a normal person (unless he has another Wolverine-like healing gift) and he probably receives/accumulates wounds like a normal guy (unless he also happens to have extra Hardiness, Thick Skin, Dodginess, whatever to change/absorb the combat/accident outcome).  Avoiding or absorbing more damage may have the same effect of keeping a character active longer in a battle/challenge, but Toughness (to me) is more mental stubbornness, resolve, or self-delusion in the face of possibly contradictory physical circumstances.

This is  much more difficult than I originally thought.

Fudge is so open-ended that even the most simple of OGL rules has dozens of implementations in Fudge.

How can I help?

I'm not entirely certain how or if you can help.

When I started I had a definite goal in mind - to publish a [redacted] from the OGL creatures. So I made a list of all the spells, abilities, feats, special powers and abilities that I would need to  get from nothing to publishing [redacted]. However, after "Toughness" - which I thought was the easiest of the list - I am hitting a wall. Haste is next in the list.

How do you define Haste? The OGL definition of Haste is pretty closely tied to the idea that you have a specific style of combat interaction. A Style that is not a given for mot Fudge games. Translating Haste for a game like BS&S or Hack'n'Slash will look completely different from translating it to Bunnies and Burrows.  But even narrowing it down to a single style - you need the concept of rounds in your game only closes in on a definition but still leaves a ton to interpretation.

Is haste a spell? What spell system? 4x5? Fudge Miracles? Psionics? Gramarye?
Or is haste an effect triggered by a spell, or a super normal power, or an event...

I am suffering from a very special form of analysis paralysis based on the open and fractal nature of Fudge - and I haven't even started on Fate and aspects. Can a spell create a temporary aspect? Can it be freely tagged?

I think I am falling into the same literal translation trap that I have railed against in the past. Rather than focus on the line by line translation of rules I should change focus and translate the "feel" and not the rule.

I think I have rambled on long enough.

shaneknysh wrote:

I think I am falling into the same literal translation trap that I have railed against in the past. Rather than focus on the line by line translation of rules I should change focus and translate the "feel" and not the rule.

I can relate to what you are saying.

Hmmm. What if...

Just make a big compilation, just the name and description, and let the user (player or GM) decide how to use it?

We already have that, in many places. d20 is well documented, and simply documenting without translating is rather pointless at this point.

Regarding haste, the proliferation of options seems the best bet. Call it a spell, give it a difficulty, then produce a long list of effects and categorizations based on the various magic systems, and general action resolution system. Perhaps it creates an aspect, perhaps it provides a "superior speed" bonus (or nullifies one an enemy possesses), perhaps it screws turn order around in non-simultaneous combat (go forward once repeatedly, circle the "round" gradually), perhaps it merely gives a pseudo-reroll due to haste. The point is, a lot of options are a good idea.

Knaight wrote:

We already have that, in many places. d20 is well documented, and simply documenting without translating is rather pointless at this point.

Yes, but that is for d20. I meant a more general/generic translation in one big book.

Sure, but if you just ignore the mechanics you have that, as d20 is the starting point for this project.