Random Fudge Topic: Alternating Combat Turns

Rolled 1d7 with a result of 4: Chapter 4, Combat, Wounds & Healing
Rolled 1d8 with a result of 2: Section 4.2, Melee Combat
Rolled 1d3 with a result of 3: Section 4.23, Alternating Combat Turns

[This article references the Fudge 1995 Edition rules. Specifically, Section 4.23, Alternating Combat Turns.]

The dice have decided on combat. This time, the topic is one of the three methods of resolving combat addressed by the rules of Fudge. A GM can select one of the methods or, if you are like me, choose all three depending on the circumstances (see "How to Juggle Combat Rules in Fudge").

I learned about alternating combat turns in the pages of the Stormbringer (1st edition) rule book, years before Fudge existed. Before that, I was accustomed to, and frustrated by, the combat sequence of Dungeons & Dragons: Attacker rolls to hit based on class level and possible bonuses, compares roll to defender's armor class, and rolls for damage if the attack is successful. The defender does nothing at this point except wait to see the attacker's result. Sure, we're supposed to imagine strikes, feints, parries, and assorted stunts in a round lasting one minute, but in terms of meaningful decisions by the players, the attacker rolls for attack and possible damage whilst the defender waits.

Stormbringer and the other games using Chaosium's Basic Role-Playing system are different. The attacker rolls to attack and the defender can roll to parry or dodge the attack. Damage, if any, is determined. Then the defender becomes the attacker and rolls to attack, whilst the attacker who is now the defender tries to parry or dodge. Every maneuver is a distinct action instead of a vague mini-montage. Every choice in attack, defense, or covering space is a meaningful one. This gives combat a distinctly different feeling that does a better job of rewarding player ingenuity.

In Fudge, alternating combat turns work the same way, with a few options added. Initiative is determined by opposed actions or opposed situational rolls. Parrying ability can be included with attack skills or developed as separate skills. Weapons that are ill-suited for parrying may incur a penalty on a subsequent attack. For animals, it is suggested that predators have a defensive skill one level lower than their offensive skill, whereas prey have the opposite arrangement.

Alternating combat turns are an enjoyable method of combat resolution. It's easy to understand, and it keeps all participants more engaged with the action. All three methods have their place (even in the same adventure as far as I am concerned), but alternating combat turns were my first introduction to alternative combat methods.

En garde!

Fudging Non-Fudge Attributes

Once again, Fudge proves its Superb versatility not only in its own right, but as a wellspring of useful rules options for other games. Read "Fed up with '3d6 down the line?' Just FUDGE it!" in the blog "It's okay; Gary sent us." I enjoy the wide variety of options that exist for generating D&D characteristics, and this looks very promising. One change I might make if I were to use this would be to change the roll for Good to (13-15): 12 + 1d3, and maybe let players pick two Good attributes instead of two Fair attributes.

[This article is cross-posted here in Applied Phantasticality.]

Random Fudge Topic: Random Character Creation

Rolled 1d7 with a result of 1: Chapter 1, Character Creation
Rolled 1d9 with a result of 8: Section 1.8, Random Character Creation

[This article references the Fudge 1995 Edition rules. Specifically, Section 1.8, Random Character Creation.]

The rules of Fudge lean toward deliberate character creation, but some players prefer the random element and this section provides one example of how to facilitate this. In this case, 2d6 is rolled for each attribute to generate a level ranging from Terrible to Superb. Once the attribute levels have been determined, 2d6 is then rolled for each skill to generate a level from Terrible to Fair. In both cases, players may get free levels to increase the attributes and skills of their choice.

Rolling 2d6 for traits doesn't appeal to me much for games outside of Traveller, so, as suggested by the rules in this section, I developed two 3d6 attribute tables—one in which the default level is Fair, and one in which the default level is Mediocre. (See "Random Attribute Generation for Fudge.")

I don't have anything else to add except that I approve of both options being available. Different players prefer different approaches to character creation, and there's no reason not to accomodate both if it helps both kinds of players enjoy the game.

Random Fudge Topic: Hit Location

Rolled 1d7 with a result of 4: Chapter 4, Combat
Rolled 1d8 with a result of 3: Section 4.3, Melee Combat Actions
Rolled 1d6 with a result of 5: Section 4.35, Hit Location

[This article references the Fudge 1995 Edition rules. Specifically, Section 4.35, Hit Location.]

Regardless of game system or specific rules options (or even in the absence of a dedicated rule on the subject), hit locations are important. Even if the GM or player decides arbitrarily where an attack struck and no specific effect is involved, it helps with the visualization of the scene and, consequently, with remembering the scene. It grounds it as a significant moment in the characters' lives. It facilitates immersion in the imaginary world.

Hit locations covered by rules that involve real consequences for characters contribute even more to the game and the imaginary world. This section of the Fudge rules offers two ways to handle hit locations.

In the first, "simplest," method, the player describes the attack and the GM interprets the player's success based on the relative degree by which the attack roll succeeded. Presumably, if the attacker was aiming for an opponent's eye and won with a mere +4 relative degree, the opponent would suffer damage generally, but would not suffer injury to, or loss of, the eye. If the essence of this method is "the better the relative degree, the better the location of the blow," then the GM will be tasked with trying to assess the minimum relative degree necessary for every possible hit location and where the attack actually lands if it falls short (and whether it varies depending on the actual relative degree achieved). This method can work, and work well with the right GM, but it is not my preference.

(I feel compelled to confess here that in most of my experience running games without dedicated hit location rules, I usually only mentioned them for descriptive effect, and I reserved extreme wounds for the killing blow.)

In the second "more complicated system," the attacker announces the intended hit location prior to rolling, the GM determines the minimum relative degree required to hit the desired location, and, if the minimum relative degree is equalled or exceeded, the desired location is hit. If the attack succeeds without reaching the minimum relative degree, the defender chooses the hit location. The damaged body part is then designated Scratched, Hurt, or Incapacitated.

This is a very elegant way to handle hit locations and I approve of it... with one reservation. If the ability to hit a specific location requires a minimum relative degree, then successful called shots will only inflict serious injuries and unsuccessful called shots that manage to hit will only cause Scratches. This defies verisimilitude. In reality and fiction, sometimes you hit the mark, but without the necessary force to inflict a real wound; sometimes you miss the mark, but the wound you inflict elsewhere is severe. This rule could significantly restrict the range of real possibilities, creating counterintuitive guardrails on both gameplay and suspension of disbelief. In other words, it lends itself to moments that just feel wrong, which is not in the spirit of Fudge.

The only way to fix this problem without inventing novel rules, as far as I can tell, is to limit the impact of relative degree to attack accuracy (hit location proximity), and divorce it from damage calculation. Damage, in this case, would be assessed only by the form of attack and/or the weapon wielded. In other words, relative degree determines how accurately you hit, and your weapon (or technique) determines how much damage you cause to that area.

The other solution is one I have used in the (hopefully) eventually-to-be-published rules of Omnia. In this method, the attacker makes one attack roll if they are aiming generally (at the torso or a randomly determined hit location), or two attack rolls if they are making a called attack. In the latter case, the first roll determines if the attack is successful generally. This is the roll that generates the difference, or the relative degree, that contributes to the attack's damage. The second roll determines if the targeted location is hit. If that roll succeeds, it is hit. If it fails, the defender decides which location is hit. The damage could be light or severe regardless of the location struck, which means the defender is potentially making a more meaningful decision when maneuvering to withstand a blow. This solves the problem, but it may also be a problem if you cannot abide more than one roll per attack.

That's how I see it. How do you see it?

Random Fudge Topic: Combat and Wounding Example

I have made a pledge to myself and all my readers (real and imaginary) to post at least one article each month to each of my blogs (as you may or may not be aware), but over the years, this blog (Creative Reckoning) has gradually become the most challenging to support in terms of viable topics (from my perspective). And then I had an idea: Perhaps I could tackle a random topic about Fudge. Older editions of Fudge even have the rules numbered, which makes the randomization effortless. So, I'll look at the contents page, roll an appropriate die, and that will be the topic of the article. I'll roll for specific sections and subsections as necessary.

Let's go!

Although I prefer the Fudge Expanded Edition, I'll be using the 1995 rules since they are freely available and form the basis of the current Fudge SRD (also known as the FUDGE System Reference Document). There are seven parts, so I'll roll my trusty d7. The result is...

Chapter 4, Combat. There are eight sections, so I'll roll a d8, with the result of...

Section 4.7, Combat and Wounding Example (q.v.). The example uses simultaneous combat rounds, wound levels, Damage Capacity, wound factors, grazing, and the damage die roll.

That's a fair number of rules to juggle in an action scene. My only issue, though, is with the necessity of calculating offensive damage factors and defensive damage factors in an effort to run combat more smoothly, which requires you to pause in what ought to be a fast-paced and exciting part of the game. If there are more than two combatants (a mêlée if you will), you will potentially need to calculate the offensive and defensive factors between every combatant on one side versus every combatant on another side (or even multiple sides). You could, of course, wait until each confrontation starts before calculating the factors, but you will still be spending time calculating them in the middle of the action. To my mind, this is not ideal. It's tedious and veers too close to abstractions for my taste. Other than that, the example is O.K. It describes a combat scene using specific rules options. They might not be the same the options I would choose, but it serves its purpose.

Do you have any opinions or insights? If so, leave a comment.

Fudge Thought of the Day 2026-07-06

I think the biggest obstacle to posting non-generic, setting-specific Fudge content is the realization that everyone uses different varieties of Fudge that are largely incompatible. The traits are different, the powers are different, the starting levels are different, even the trait levels and the numbers of trait levels can be different. How universal is the game, really, when there is no reliable baseline? The task of converting material from one iteration of Fudge to another can be just as laborious as converting material from a totally unrelated system to Fudge. It's maddening. And it discourages us from sharing the material from our adventures and settings, because in many cases it would require so much explanation to enable anyone else to use it that the whole exercise seems futile. Anything truly useful amounts to something more accurately designated as system neutral. I support system neutral gaming material, and I think Fudge concepts can do an excellent job of promoting it, but in the end one might well wonder, "Where's the Fudge?" Or "Which Fudge?"

Fudge Thought of the Day 2026-06-27

I've toyed with the idea before, but I would like to see (or edit) a version of Fudge that only consists of the subjective rules. Keep it simple; keep it short; keep it grounded in self-explanatory terms. It is time to revisit a more organic Fudge.

Blogging Blues

For some time, the tables I used for my Mass Scale Chart and Strength Scale Chart have been displaying incorrectly. This was not an issue when I first posted them, but I cannot account for it and therefore have no idea how to fix it. So, should I delete those pages, replace them with links to external files, or leave them as is? I do not know if anyone uses these charts or if anyone even knows they exist.

Speaking of not knowing how many human beings read this blog, Blogger's capacity to share details of a blog's statistics with its creator have become worthless. There is no way to know if the views are from people or bots, which makes the numbers meaningless. The majority of referrers are unidentified. In the last seven days, Creative Reckoning has had 32 references from six identified referring sites and 740 references from "Other." How useful. For keywords used to discover the blog, there used to be... a list of keywords! Now, it just says, "Other... 772 pageviews." How helpful. For top locations, I am supposed to believe that Singapore is number two and Seychelles is number five. Although I would be very pleased if there were indeed vibrant role-playing communities in these countries where people are fascinated by Fudge and somehow finding my blog, I confess to being a bit skeptical. As far as I can tell, the statistics have no value whatsoever, and my only gauge of whether anyone reads this blog (or any of my others) at all is when someone leaves a comment, which is very rare.

I keep several blogrolls on each of my blogs. One is a list of my blogs, one is a list of others' blogs, and sometimes I have a list of relevant podcasts. All of them are set up to display blog posts in order of newest first. Lately, these blogrolls have been updating far less reliably. It has been two days since I last posted in Omnia Pro Omnibus and all of my blogrolls are still displaying the previous post from two weeks ago.

In other non-news, I sort of wish I had picked a different name for this blog. I doubt anyone knows that the inspiration was the term "dead reckoning," which is the true meaning of "fudge" as it is used in the context of the role-playing game entitled Fudge, or that substituting "creative" for "dead" was meant to evoke the academic theme of most of my blogs' titles (Applied Phantasticality, Theoretical Swashbuckling, etc.). "Creative Reckoning" should make one think of Creative Writing as a subject and dead reckoning as a method of GMing Fudge (according to my thinking at the time). Instead, it is probably mostly misinterpreted or ignored, thus utterly failing its purpose.

Thank you (if you are a person) for reading this outpouring of frustration. It's hard to stay motivated in what increasingly feels like a ghost town.

Fudge: The Averaging

And now for something completely average...

Are you looking for a game that promotes extreme realism in character creation and action resolution in all its dreariness and drabbery? Try Fudge: The Averaging. With just three tweaks to the standard Fudge rules, you could be wallowing in ordinariness.

Step One

For each trait, roll 3d6 and consult the table below to find its trait level.

3d6	Fudge
18	Superb
16-17	Great
13-15	Good
9-12	Fair
6-8	Mediocre
4-5	Poor
3	Terrible

Step Two

To resolve actions, roll a number of Fudge dice based on the trait's level.

Any result above Superb or below Terrible wraps around to the other end. For example, if a character with a Great trait rolls +2, the actual result is Terrible, whereas if a character with a Terrible trait rolls −1, the actual result is Superb.

Roll	Trait Level
4dF	Superb
5dF	Great
6dF	Good
7dF	Fair
6dF	Mediocre
5dF	Poor
4dF	Terrible

Step Three

In any given social situation, the character whose relevant trait is closest to Fair or who has the most traits closest to Fair is granted the most respect and/or authority.

Advanced Option

A natural Mediocre is a critical success!

Improving the Trait Ladder 2

[The following article was originally a sequel to another article that has been lost to the astral void because I lacked the wisdom to make backups at the time and archive.org did not capture it. This is one of the articles that was captured, thankfully. I feel it has been superseded by "One Step Beyond," but I offer it here as a relic of my earlier Fudge-blogging activities.]

I am rethinking the improved trait ladder (q.v.), and it has occurred to me that trying to find four additional words that express increasing degrees of the Superb and the Terrible may be as fruitless as trying to assess whether Amazing or Incredible is objectively superior in an extended trait ladder for superheroes. My own solution for the latter was to arrange them alphabetically, so why not extend the same solution to the improved trait ladder? All we are essentially trying to express is the concept of Superb (or Terrible) only more so. Instead of fussing over whether Exceptionally is better than Exceedingly or Extremely (and there are certainly too many “e” words for comfort), I’ve decided to use synonyms for sense 2 of the adverb "very" (“in actual fact”). In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, these are given as “actually, de facto, genuinely, really, truly, veritably.” Of these, the last four suit my purposes, which gives us this:

Fudge Traits	#	Improved Traits
Superb +4	+7	Veritably Superb
Superb +3	+6	Truly Superb
Superb +2	+5	Really Superb
Superb +1	+4	Genuinely Superb
Superb	+3	Superb
Great	+2	Great
Good	+1	Good
Fair	0	Fair
Mediocre	−1	Mediocre
Poor	−2	Poor
Terrible	−3	Terrible
Terrible −1	−4	Genuinely Terrible
Terrible −2	−5	Really Terrible
Terrible −3	−6	Truly Terrible
Terrible −4	−7	Veritably Terrible

Yes, they mean the same thing, but it has the sound of a more natural, intuitive progression, which is aided by their arrangement in alphabetical order. I think some playtesting is in order.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 24 May 2011.]