In a previous article ("I Am Not A Number! I Am a Free-Form Adjective!"), I made the statement, "I think the key to better Fudge is to divorce the trait ladder from numerical values." I have more thoughts on the matter.
Have you ever noticed that most online Fudge dice rollers generate a trait level and a numerical result simultaneously? It will read something like, "Good (+1)" or "−2 (Poor)." Any Fudge gamer ought to know that Fudge dice generate a number that modifies an existing trait level. If your skill is Great and you roll 4dF getting −2, then the result of your action is Fair. Fudge dice don't generate the trait level—they tell you whether the quality of an action is normal, better than normal, or worse than normal. In order for these online rollers to be considered accurate, you can either use them only for situational rolls and actions involving Fair traits, or you can ignore the trait level and use only the numerical result.
Is it nitpicking? Perhaps. The issue is that it leads to confusion. The more complicated versions of combat in Fudge are rife with calculations that remove us from the immediacy of the role-playing experience. Add Scale to the equation and you have even more of a number-juggling morass. But the answer is right in the rule book (3.21 Reading the Dice):
At the top of the character sheet, there should be a simple chart of the attribute levels, such as:SuperbTo determine the result of an action, simply put your finger on your trait level, then move it up (for plus results) or down (for minus results).
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible
There are no numbers here, just adjectives arranged in a hierarchy. It is quintessentially elegant game design. My mantra in game design is "Keep it simple," and my defense of Fudge at its simplest (and a trait ladder unburdened by numbers) is described at greater length in "Simplicity Equals Power".
I am just here to remind the Fudge community that simplicity is the game's greatest asset. If we want more people to play Fudge, we need to play to its strengths.
How can someone interested in subjective Fudge square the trait ladder with the whole ODF & DDF system (which seems to suck everything back into a numbers game)?
ReplyDeleteThe Sample Wound Factor List, which introduces ODF and DDF, is specifically offered "for those who prefer numerical values," so I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile it with subjective Fudge unless you just want to use the numbers as a guide instead of crunching them and concerning yourself with a wound track. I think it's a valid approach. Personally, I like the idea of using the rules in Wound Factors without resorting to the numbers (apart from using relative degree as a baseline). Start with the relative degree, assess the effectiveness of the attacker (strength, weapon quality) versus the effectiveness of the defender (mass, armor quality), and decide whether the attack or the defense is more effective. How much more effective one is over the other determines whether the defender is unscathed, scratched, wounded, incapacitated, etc. My preference is to describe the location of the wound and its severity, which affects what a wounded character can do, rather than calculating wound levels and imposing universal penalties to actions based on those wound levels.
Delete