Mana Everywhere; It's Like Manna

House rules for magic systems are not in short supply. Whether you are searching for variants of your favorite system, adaptations from one game system to another, or unique systems that have been fashioned by skilled craftsman who suffer for their art and offer it to the world without monetary compensation, they are abundant. One thing I wish were abundant were house rules for magic systems that do not use the word "mana."

Once upon a time, game designers were content to use one term, for the most part, to describe the harnessing of supernatural forces. It was called "magic." There seemed to be an infinite number of ways to explain the source of magic or how it works (if one felt the necessity) ranging from innate psychic gifts to channeling the energy of the Positive Material Plane to tapping the ambient magical field of one's immediate surroundings. Any of these are enough to spark the imagination and possibly inspire one to conjecture about the "physics" of magic in a particular setting, even possibly leading to ideas for new adventures and background stories.

Then someone decided to take a word, a very specific word with a very specific religious meaning belonging to a very specific culture, and reduce it to a generic rules term. That word is mana. Looking at a variety of online sources, I note that the term in general has been diluted over the years, so I am forced to admit that game designers and rules hackers are probably not solely responsible for the word's overuse:

1 : the power of the elemental forces of nature embodied in an object or person
2 : moral authority : PRESTIGE
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

or:

(in Polynesian, Melanesian, and Maori belief) pervasive supernatural or magical power.

— ORIGIN Maori.
(AskOxford)

or:

a generalized, supernatural force or power, which may be concentrated in objects or persons.
[Origin: 1835–45; < Polynesian] (Dictionary.com)

At one time, mana meant the supernatural power present in a being or object that could be released from its containment and utilized by another by destroying said being or object. It was tied to a belief system held particularly by the Maori, and it was especially important to concepts of divine and tribal authority.

Why someone thought mana would be an excellent word to be applied generically to magic in a fantasy setting of predominantly Western European influence is baffling. Medieval Western Europeans did, in fact, have a concept of magic as a force that could be locked within beings or objects, and they had words for it, too: "quintessence" and "prima materia."

Perhaps it was once considered a nifty idea to use the word "mana" instead of "magic." Perhaps it was thought to be exotic. Perhaps, even, it was thought that it would be more believable to have in-character conversations about mana than magic in a medieval European fantasy world. Read that sentence again. Yes, as absurd as it sounds, I think it may have been part of the rationale.

To most people, the presence of mana in a text about mostly Western magic is probably not as jarring and unaesthetic as it is to me. For my serious games, I like to immerse myself in another world, much as I like to do when I am reading a good novel. To me, a wizened alchemist muttering something about mana is about as convincing as the Sheriff of Nottingham using the phrase "crime scene investigation" or Robin Hood discussing the merits of "wealth redistribution." If it were a comical interpretation, sure, anything goes. For that matter, the party can greet strangers with "aloha" and have luaus every night of their journey to Mordor. For serious games, however, I think mana is best limited to traditional Polynesian or modern cosmopolitan settings.

Incidentally, I do think that a traditional Polynesian setting would make a rich environment for gaming. The possibilities are... fascinating.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 19 July 2007.]

Fudge Links Lost and Found

I updated the Fudge Links page at Fudgery.net after discovering that five of them are now broken. I know some of them are gone forever, but some may have moved. If anyone knows of any new URLs for the sites that are marked "offline," please leave a comment. Thank you.

[Edit: Please disregard as site no longer exists.]

How to Juggle Hit Location Rules in Fudge

As I mentioned previously (q.v.), I like to use different rules options depending on my mood in any given session. Some options are too good not to use, so I try to use them all. Another combat-related example is hit locations. I like called attacks. I also like random hit locations. I also like hits that default to the torso. When I GM, I use all three options.

The following rule builds upon my own Alternate Section 4.35, Hit Location.

All attacks are made against random hit locations unless the attacker declares that a hit location is being targeted (known as a called attack).

A called attack must succeed by the required minimum relative degree in order to make contact with the targeted hit location. If the attack succeeds, but not by the minimum relative degree, then the defender chooses the hit location.

If the non-player character combatants are numerous and/or minor, the GM may rule that all attacks that are not called attacks are made against their torso hit location instead of rolling for random hit locations.

[Edited from an article originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 7 March 2011.]

How to Juggle Combat Rules in Fudge

One of my quirks as a Fudge GM is that I enjoy shifting from one rules option to another depending on circumstances and general mood. For example, I see no reason not to use story elements, simultaneous combat rounds, and alternating combat turns at different points during the same session as long as it feels right. There is, indeed, a method to my madness, and it occurred to me that it could be codified quite easily. Here, then, is my very simple solution for incorporating the major combat subsystems into a single system. I'll tentatively call it the combat option selection system.

The rules from which I am drawing are in Section 4.2, Melee Combat of the Fudge 1995 Edition.

When combat seems imminent, the first step in the combat option selection system is to roll for the initiative. Different methods for determining initiative are described in Section 4.23, Alternating Combat Turns, but in this iteration initiative is determined before the combat option is selected.

If the initiative roll is a tie between the two opposing parties (whether they are individuals or groups), then the fight will be resolved using simultaneous combat rounds (see Section 4.22).

If the initiative roll results in a winner and loser, then the fight will be resolved using alternating combat turns, with the winner making the first attack (see Section 4.23).

Regardless of the result of the initiative roll, if both parties are agreeable, the fight may be resolved using story elements instead (see Section 4.21).

Optionally, the winner of the initiative roll may state whether alternating combat turns or story elements will be used for the fight.

Not only is this system completely intuitive (ties are fought simultaneously; non-ties favor the quick and the bold), but it gives everyone the chance to the use the combat rules they like best.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 4 March 2011.]

It Matters Who Rolls

In a game with the unfortunate name of Fudge, it is of the utmost importance that trust be established between the GM and the players. (Fudge is a fun and whimsical name to be sure, but unless one knows that it is derived from the verb and not the noun, and unless one knows that it refers to the act of improvising and not cheating, then its very name, especially in the gaming hobby, can itself be a source of distrust from players unfamiliar with the game.) In aid of this, I urge all GMs to adopt these practices:

• Roll in full view. Whenever you are rolling for an opposed action, let the players see your roll, and make sure you see theirs. This is especially relevant in combat. Naturally, if anyone is using a trait that involves detection, the GM must roll it in secret. The same is true of rolls on encounter tables and other secret weapons for GM eyes only. Whenever there is conflict or the use of an observable trait, however, the GM should roll in full view.
  
• Allow players to make their own attack rolls. Do not deprive your players of the joy of rolling dice. The suspense caused by the very act of rolling dice will do much of the work for you in making the game exciting for everyone.
  
• Roll all random hit locations. Unless a player character makes a called attack against a specific hit location (and suffers the resulting increase in difficulty), then it's in the hands of the gods. The player has relinquished all responsibility for where the hit lands and it is up to the GM to represent the fickle finger of Fate. You can rule in accordance with GM's whim as is your right, or you can roll for a random hit location. Just remember to roll in full view.
  
• Allow players to make their own skill rolls and attribute rolls. Don't make the novice mistake of requiring a roll for every use of a skill. Fudge is about making educated judgment calls. However, if the circumstances dictate that a roll should be made, let the players roll for their own characters. They should be able to witness the result of their own actions (unless, of course, it involves detection).
  

Thoughts on Scale 2

[The charts referred to in this article are the Mass Scale Chart and the Strength Scale Chart.]

Although I have seen advice against it, I think the best solution to the Scale controversy is to accept the fact that Mass is a separate trait from Mass Scale. If we accept that Mass Scale is the relative size of the average member of a given species, and that the Mass Scale of objects made for use by that species is 0 relative to that species, then it holds that objects, at least, and probably beings, possess a Mass trait, too.

This Mass trait would be rated numerically on the Mass Scale chart, but its actual real world value would be the Mass trait and Mass Scale combined, just as a Strength attribute and Strength Scale are combined when an offensive damage factor is calculated.

Take, for example, a human being and his bowling ball. The average human being (according to the chart we are using) is Mass Scale 0 and therefore 68 kilograms. His favorite bowling ball is Mass Scale 0 (because it is scaled for use by a Scale 0 human being), but since it weighs only 6 kilograms, its Relative Mass must be -6. Mass Scale 0 + Relative Mass -6 = Mass -6. To find out the Mass or Relative Mass of any normal man-made object, you simply need to know its mass in real world terms.

But suppose the human bowler is challenged to a game by a huge troll? The troll is Mass Scale +4 and therefore about 333 kilograms. The bowling ball, created by a troll craftsman to be used by trolls, is the same size relative to a troll as a man-made bowling ball is to a human being. Since the man-made bowling ball is Relative Mass -6, then you just need to add the troll's Mass Scale to arrive at the troll-made bowling ball's Mass. Mass Scale +4 + Relative Mass -6 = -2. A troll-made bowling ball has a Mass of -2, or about 30 kilograms.

Suppose the human bowler next plays against a gnome. The gnome is Mass Scale -13, or about 350 grams. His bowling ball was made by himself of the appropriate dimensions, so it is 6 levels lighter than himself. Mass Scale -13 - Relative Mass -6 = -19. A gnome-made bowling ball has a Mass of -19, or about 30 grams.

To summarize, to find the Mass of an object made for beings of non-human Scale, add the Mass Scale of the being for whom it was made, to the Relative Mass (the Mass of the equivalent object made for human beings). It's that easy. It requires, however, that the correct terms are in use.

Mass Scale

The mass of the average member of a species.

Relative Mass

The mass of an object relative to the mass of the being for whom it was made.

Mass

The actual mass of a being or object, calculated by adding Mass Scale to Relative Mass. (If a man-made object is 2 levels heavier than a human being, i.e. Relative Mass +2, then the same object made for a different species would be 2 levels heavier than the typical member of that species, too.)

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 13 March 2007.]

Thoughts on Scale

A recurring complaint about Fudge over the years, in the Fudge Mailing List and in various discussions, is the confusion caused by the rules for Scale in Chapter 2. What is the purpose of Scale rules? Simply, it is to illustrate that certain things are relative to one's size. A gladius in the hands of a human being is the equivalent of a longsword in the hands of a halfling; a spear thrown by a pixie is as dangerous as a dart to larger creatures. But when pixies battle pixies, a spear is a spear regardless of how small it seems to you or me because they are of the same Scale. That's all there is to it. Creatures of the same Scale fight without Scale modifiers. Creatures of different Scale fight with modifiers according to their difference, e.g. a Scale 0 human knight fights a Scale 3 ogre, so the ogre adds +3 to its offensive damage factor (ODF) in combat, and +3 to its defensive damage factor (DDF). If the ogre fights another ogre, the Scale bonus is ignored because they are of equal Scale. If, however, the ogre upsets a Scale 8 demon, the demon adds +5 to its ODF and DDF when fighting the ogre, or +8 if it engages in a melee with the Scale 0 human knight.

Scale rules are also beneficial in games where all of the characters are of a nonhuman Scale, as many Bunnies & Burrows and Watership Down fans are aware. In my own Mass Scale Chart, a typical rabbit is Scale -9. Since most of the characters in this genre are of the same Scale, there is no modification if they fight one another. Relative to one another, they are all effectively Scale 0 (and people are Scale 9). If a Scale -9 rabbit is attacked by a Scale -8 cat, the cat gains a +1 to its ODF and DDF. If the same rabbit is attacked by a Scale -4 dog, the dog adds +5 to its ODF and DDF. From the rabbit's Scale 0 point of view, the cat is Scale 1 and the dog is Scale 5.

In many Scale charts, especially those dealing with Mass, examples are included to illustrate things that belong to each Scale level. Human beings, for instance, are almost always situated at Scale 0. Animals are often listed at other Scale levels to help one visualize the typical Scale levels that various real and imaginary creatures might occupy. All of this is well and good until man-made objects are included.

It might seem reasonable to know the Mass of a paper clip, a bowling ball, and an ore freighter, but placing those, or any, inanimate objects on the same Scale chart as living beings defeats the purpose of the chart and fundamentally misinterprets the concept of Scale in Fudge, for you see a paper clip, a bowling ball, and an ore freighter are all Scale 0.

A normal Scale 0 bowling ball used by normal Scale 0 human beings (who have an average weight of 68 kilograms) weighs about 7.25 kilograms; likewise a Scale -13 bowling ball made for Scale -13 gnomes would weigh much less than a 350 gram gnome, and a Scale 11 bowling ball made for Scale 11 giants would weigh less than its 6 ton owner. Scale rules exist to show you that things of a certain Scale are made for beings of that Scale and they don't necessarily have the same Mass as the beings for whom they are made.

House rules are notorious perpetrators of this misunderstanding of Scale. Consider the typical combat rules that stipulate a Scale 16 main battle tank or a Scale 9 P-51 Mustang. I know they were just inserted into the Scale slot because they happened to fit the weight of that Scale. That is the problem. According to the rules, a Scale 16 tank would be operated by giants the size of tyrannosaurs, i.e. by a Scale 16 tank crew. Real main battle tanks are operated by Scale 0 human tank crews. That doesn't mean a tank is weak or fragile. It just means it was made for normal human beings, so it doesn't gain a Scale bonus relative to human beings. If it causes tremendous damage, the damage is figured by giving it a higher offensive factor. If its armor is effective against all rifle rounds, its protective capacity is figured by giving it a higher defensive factor. Then if the adventurers travel to another dimension where giant Scale 9 creatures sail giant ships, you can add +9 for Scale to the ODF and DDF of a normal ship in that world (and if the adventurers drink a serum that causes them to grow to the size of the giant creatures, the +9 for Scale disappears).

When I first compiled my own Mass Scale Chart, I made the mistake of including man-made objects, not because I thought they were of a different Scale, but because I was mixing up Mass Scale, Strength Scale, and the Mass of objects themselves. For my next project, I shall remove them from the Mass Scale Chart, but I will add them to a separate Strength Scale Chart that lists them as objects that can be lifted by beings of a particular Strength Scale. [Edit: This has been accomplished, although providing examples will be an ongoing process.]

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 13 February 2007.]

Expanding the Uses of Scale in Fudge

The first articles I shall be reposting from Fudgery.net/fudgerylog are on that thorniest of Fudge rules: Scale. First, though, I would like to share two articles on the subject by Paul Dupuis:

• Fudge Scale—More Than Mass
• Fudge Scale Applied to Skills, Gifts, and Faults

Welcome to Creative Reckoning

This is the first post of my new Web log devoted to Fudge — a role-playing game designed by Steffan O'Sullivan and members of the Usenet community — and the creativity it has inspired. Creative Reckoning is a direct descendant of my first gaming Web log, Fudgerylog, and many of its articles will be republished here (and noted as such). Unlike its ancestor, however, this Web log will maintain its concentration on content specific to the Fudge role-playing game (and possibly Sherpa, another role-playing game by Steffan O'Sullivan). Creative Reckoning will replace Fudgerylog as the interactive aspect of my Fudge site, Fudgery.net.

Grey Ghost Press, Inc. is the official publisher of Fudge. Early editions of the rules are freely available online from Grey Ghost, and, with errata integrated, from Creative Reckoning via the Fudge 1995 Edition page as well as a downloadable document file.

For more information about Fudge from its author, read the Fudge FAQ and Fudge Designer's Notes.

When in doubt, just fudge it!