Linked video is part 1 of 4, and as long as it is, it’s the shortest of them.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

I had heard vaguely about how this was a bad system before, but never before realised just quite how bad it was, and in what ways.

Warning: references to sexual assault, sexism, and racism

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    116 months ago

    F.A.T.A.L. is known for its graphic violent and sexual content, as well as the complexity of the underlying game system, involving higher-level mathematics

    Higher level math? Absolutely disgusting.

    • ZagorathOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      I dunno about “higher level” maths, but there is one bit where you’re asked to solve a simple year 8–level algebra equation (which is still a much higher level than any other RPG I’ve ever played asks you to do). It’s also in one of the more explicitly NSFW parts of the system.

      Specifically, you have to solve for y: (BT – 80)2 = –4y + 120, where BT is a number arrived at in an earlier step, using (CM / CV/A ) × 100. I will not be defining what CM and CV/A are in this forum in order to keep the comments SFW.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        Hah. I was mostly just joking as it included higher maths in the same sentence as the highly sexually explicit content. But that’s interesting that they decided to implement such a convoluted way of getting to stats instead of just simplifying it with a table.

        • ZagorathOP
          link
          fedilink
          56 months ago

          Oh don’t worry. There are a lot of tables in this system.

      • @brenticus
        link
        36 months ago

        Is that the damage formula based on, uh, circumference?

        Haven’t actually read the book, thankfully, but I recall hearing that was a thing.

        • ZagorathOP
          link
          fedilink
          46 months ago

          Yes to circumference, but no to damage. Ripping is a possibility the book discusses, but this formula is for quite the opposite.