The problem is the integration of difficulty modifiers with contested rolls.

The way it works now is simple enough. As per page 193, contested rolls are you rolling something and someone else rolling their thing, then you compare. Higher roll wins. Very simple.

We all know about fate points and Aspects and how those modify rolls. This isn't part of the problem, so it doesn't matter in this topic. This is because in contested rolls it modifies the roll, not the difficulty. So the math works out just fine.

Now, we have non-fate-point-driven modifiers. The rules for these start on 311. This section is a little hand-wavy, but it comes down to this: When factors are against you, the difficulty goes up, typically in units of +2. In a rush? +2 difficulty. Lacking some equipment? +2 difficulty. Very simple, again.

Now comes the problem. Turn to page 142 and check out the Stealth trapping Hiding. In a few words, it lays out the rules for hiding in a situation with difficulty modifiers from page 311. In short, you set the difficulty to hide, then your roll becomes the difficulty to spot you.

Why is this a problem? Well, low difficulties mean that low rolls can be successful. But that means that it's easier to spot you, because you rolled low. So your successful rolls, being lower, mean it's actually easier to spot you than if you'd rolled a barely successful roll against a higher difficulty.

For example, if the difficulty to hide is +0 and you rolled +2, it's easier to spot you than if the difficulty had been +2 and you'd rolled +3. Never mind that you've got 2 Shifts on the lower difficulty. You're easier to spot by 1.

This bugs me.

So I've come up with two simple ways to resolve this:

1. Modifiers to the difficulty during contests are multiplied by -1 and applied as a modifier to your roll. So a -2 to your difficulty (making it easier by 2) instead gets applied as a +2 to your roll (making it easier by 2). Likewise, a modifier of +2 to the difficulty (making it harder by 2) gets applied as a -2 to your roll (making it harder by 2).

2. Compare Shifts in contested rolls rather than the rolls themselves. If you beat your difficulty by 3 and the other dude beat his by 2, it doesn't matter that his roll is higher, because you have more Shifts. So you win.

They both accomplish pretty much the same thing: People can make contested rolls against different difficulties, and the degree to which you succeed matters. The first one sets all difficulties to the same baseline and the second counts degrees of success. These are more or less the same thing.

Thoughts?

For those of you not familiar with the concept of a bug out bag, the basic idea is that it's a bag full of the most basic survival supplies you'd need to stay alive for 72 hours. When shit hits the fan, you grab your bug out bag and run out the door. It stays packed at all times and is as light weight as possible, so it minimizes the amount of time it takes to get you out the door as well as the stress it puts on you as you basically run for your life.

There are a number of competing theories on what should and should not go into the normal versions of these things. I'd like to avoid such discussions if at all possible; I'm not really interested on where people stand on the water filtration/ chemical treatment debate, for example. Please try to keep this to magical supplies.

So, what goes into a theoretical PC's bug out bag to keep them alive from magical threats in an emergency situation, with little to no notice, for the period of roughly 72 hours?

Some thoughts:

* chalk (for circles, improvised wards, etc)
* a small bottle of holy water (a weapon against some beasties)
* light weight holy symbol of a religion you believe in (protection from said beasties)

Thoughts? Feel free to include items specific to local situations, although if you do so include the reason the item suits the situation. (For example, if the local faeries want you dead, an iron knife makes total sense.)

I've been cruising the net for DFRPG related interviews and the like. I just finished one at gameplaywright.net. I stumbled upon a quote by Fred:

"If I were to somehow distill it all I’d say the project has taught me that living life as a publisher with maximum transparency is all kinds of good for you. It gets fans on board and watching your back. It keeps people from feeling like you’re hiding a failure from them. It brings people into the circle with you, to where they’re with you along on that journey. So when you make big honking rookie mistakes — like we did — they understand, they forgive, and they help you get back on your feet."

And I just need to say, bravo. I really wish other game companies would learn this lesson. I'm not going to name names, but there's another gaming company I used to be a huge fan of that has totally put me off by being so opaque with their game design process; it's made things incredibly frustrating when something's obviously going wrong, but no one in the know will say anything about it. With Evil Hat, they just pop online and say what's up. It doesn't totally get rid of the frustration, but it makes it feel almost like you're on the same team since you know they're feeling the same frustration.

Thank you guys. I just wanted to say that you're doing it right.

This is sort of the offspring of the "what would  you make" and "what's your first story" threads. The basic idea is this: What do you think your group will make for its first round of characters? Do you think they'll all end up with the same character type? For the GMs out there, do you plan to try to convince your group to play a certain thing, and if so, what?

My game group is really dynamic, so I'm not sure who's going to be involved. As such, I can't really answer my first couple of questions.  For the last, I'm going to try to convince them to play humans with whatever degree of magical potential. Whether that be wizards, focussed practitioners, or emissaries of power, I'm not too picky.

So, how about you?