## [Decommissioned] Fuzzy Logic

I am currently looking at a different way to express Fuzzy Logic.

**REVIEW TIME** (since I’ve had a few flavors of this):

For the PCs (currently calling them Drones), there are two stats: Core and Fuzzy Logic. Core is a fixed number that starts at 100 and drops by 10 every so often (variable by desired game length). Fuzzy Logic is a stat represented somehow by dice and can be a result on its own or something that could be added to Core to give a final result. Core and Fuzzy Logic or Core+Fuxxy Logic are compared against a Difficulty Percentage set by the GM (which I’m calling a Drone Manager). The Difficulty ranges between 1 – 100 and should be the percentage chance of failure.

Therefore, if a Drone PC wants to jump across a chasm, the DM would say, “That’s a 60% chance of failure.” The player looks at Core (since jumping is what a drone was programmed to do) and if the Core is 60 or better, the drone accomplishes the action.

However, if a Drone PC wants to chat up a pretty girl, the DM would say, “There’s a 40% chance of failure.” The player looks at Fuzzy Logic (since flirting is not what a drone was programmed to do) and “rolls” Fuzzy Logic and tries to meet or beat a 40.

**Fuzzy Logic Now**

The current build expresses it as separate dice that are rolled and added together. When I explained it to someone, they pointed out that it would work like dice in 7th Sea and the quote used was “how fun is it to roll 8 keep 8”? I realized that in a timed game, this could slow things down. I am sad that I may not have open-ended rolls (which I love).

**One option under consideration**

I could express Fuzzy Logic as a single d10 roll and the variable is the multiplier. This means that Fuzzy Logic (FL) is a single digit, starting at a 1. So, if you roll 1d10, get an 8 and FL is 2, then the result is 16 (compared against a difficulty ranging from 1-100). This gives a wild spread, which maps to the randomness of a drone working outside its programming. However, it also means I may have to throw a multiplication table on the character sheet (which is kind of funny). What do you think about this?

**What are some other options for Fuzzy Logic?**

Here’s what FL should do:

- be simple and easy to explain; something I can have on the character sheet
- use a randomizer (preferably 10-sided die/dice) to reflect the unexpected results of moving out of the norm and trying something foreign
- allow for quick progression (something that can be increased every time the action is failed to simulate a learning computer and encourage doing things outside programming)
- give a result that can either be a 1-100 number on its own or reach a 1-100 number as it increases
- give a result that can be added to Core stat (Core starts at 100 and declines by 10 over time) for times when the player describes an action where the PC can use both Core and FL added as the final result to be compared against the difficulty
- work quickly (it is a timed game)

Miners, please give me succor.

Rich, I’m sorry I haven’t had more brainpower to devote to this this week, but have you done any at-the-table playtesting (or playstorming)? I think you might be at a point where that might serve you better than anything else.

If you can’t get a local group, you might want to consider some Skype discussion.

Comment by Matthew Gandy | July 10, 2008 |

Matthew,

No problem on the brainpower, I understand. I did a small playtest last week that gave me quite a bit to digest. I hope to playtest again soon with some updates.

Comment by orklord | July 16, 2008 |

What about having Fuzzy Logic get applied to Core always? Since the idea of Fuzzy Logic in the real world is that it’s something used to supplement basic procedures, this might be pretty cool. So if the DM rules that Core doesn’t apply, you’re only rolling your FL, but if she rules that it does you can use your FL as a boost. This way mechanically you can argue that FL is something that is included in their programming to help them deal with unexpected situations, and that they come to rely more and more upon this “backdoor exploit” as time goes on. That makes the geek in me quite squidgy.

Rolling and adding dice totals results in a stronger middle that is marginally higher with each die. The middle does get higher but the center gets very, very much stronger.

Why do you prefer the d10? d6s are much more common. I usually prefer to use those unless I can’t for some reason. (This is, by the way, a non-rhetorical question; I assume you have a reason and would like to hear it.)

I don’t really love your solution because one die is a linear probability rather than a geometric one, making extreme success as common as extreme failure.

This post is a bit hodgepodgy but hopefully you can get something useful out of it.

Comment by robertbohl | July 16, 2008 |

I agree applying Fuzzy Logic to Core all the time does help. during the playtest, I found that a flat Core stole some of the fun out of conflicts. Pushing seemed like a good idea until it went into play. So, I’m going to chuck pushing and add FL to add conflicts where Core applies.

I prefer the d10 because of the symmetry of it. I like having a potential roll of 10 when compared to a system that is based on starting at 100% and going down by tens.

I wish I could find a way to only use 1s and 0s from the d10 and then let everythign but 1s and 0s be a third result. I dunno, just can’t wrap my head around that to make it simple and fun. But a robot game where rolls are in 1s and 0s, I like that idea.

As for the linear prob vs. geometric… well, I wasn’t in love with having a multiplication table on the sheet, so I’m unsold on the concept. I want something fast and a little bit of a kmii-game and random, like trying something new that you’ve never done before.

Comment by orklord | July 20, 2008 |