List of Attributes by Game Celebrates 20th Anniversary

Recently, I mentioned that this year is the 10th anniversary of Creative Reckoning, and it would have been the 20th anniversary of Fudgery.net had I kept it going. It is also the 20th anniversary of the List of Attributes by Game. The list serves as a resource for Fudge GMs, game designers, game historians, and anyone else who is curious about how different role-playing games define the inherent capabilities of characters. I update the list as often as I can, and I welcome suggestions and comments.

Painting Characters in Broad Strokes (Part 2)

[This article originally appeared in 2010 in Fudgerylog, the blog connected to my defunct Fudgery.net site. (Read Part 1.)]

In Part 1, I suggested a method for creating the supporting cast—whether player characters or non-player characters—in a Fudge game adapted from television shows or movies, but there is another method that has been part of the rules since the 1995 edition, and that is the Alternate Section on Character Creation by Ed Heil. In this method, none of the attributes or skills are listed until a situation arises during play when a player must decide whether to use a trait and allocate the necessary levels from his starting pool of levels or refrain from using the trait. The character begins as little more than a description of one or two sentences and a skill level pool (which may also be traded in the traditional manner for attributes or gifts if so desired). Given the sketchiness with which most characters are initially defined in television and cinema, this would seem to be an ideal method of character creation. Characters in these media often evolve as a show progresses, revealing skills and background details the audience didn’t know they possessed (and which probably didn’t even exist until a particular story required them). In a show such as classic Doctor Who, even Companions rarely seem to begin as more than a couple sentences’ worth of description. For my own purposes, however, a compromise might be more effective.

In my current Whovian project, Classic Doctor Who: The Unofficial Role-Playing Game, I will be presenting multiple character creation options, and this will probably be one of them. Companions may begin with a brief description and 3 free levels to be distributed amongst the following attributes: Strength, Stamina, Coordination, Intellect, Willpower, and Charisma. They may choose 1 gift, with further gifts costing an equal number of faults. They will have a skill level pool of perhaps 30 free skill levels that may be distributed or held in reserve or traded for attributes or gifts (or any combination thereof). This makes adapting characters from the original show especially easy. Instead of inventing abilities for Barbara Wright that she never demonstrated in the show, we can simply assign her some skill levels in Teaching, History, and Negotiation, and the rest will be the hands of the player who role-plays her in the game. Who knows what other abilities she may reveal in the course of an adventure? This could make playing an existing Companion just as interesting as creating one’s own.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 6 October 2010.]

Painting Characters in Broad Strokes (Part 1)

[This article originally appeared in 2010 in Fudgerylog, the blog connected to my defunct Fudgery.net site. (Read Part 2.)]

Here is another option for character traits in a cinematic Fudge game. Some genres, especially those adapted from movies or television shows, do not lend themselves to detailed descriptions of a character’s specific skills. Any attempt to adapt such characters to a role-playing game with an extensive list of skills would require the designer to resort to guesswork in order to make the character "whole" and ready to play. The problem with this approach, apart from the necessity of invoking poetic license, is that most characters in these media are notable not so much for the skills they use, but the decisions they make. This is especially apparent with the majority of the Doctor’s companions on Doctor Who (which I am currently attempting to adapt). Non-player characters, too, of any genre, typically need only the barest of details to fulfill their functions. What is the best way to describe such characters with an economy of traits?

Taking a cue from another role-playing game I hold in high esteem, Sherpa, one possible answer is to discard skills completely and rely on a combination of attributes and attributes-as-occupations. Sherpa has the following attributes in order of importance (according to the author, Steffan O’Sullivan): Profession, Experience, Reasoning, Agility, Strength, and Health. The first two attributes are not the usual inherent characteristics one expects to find, but are actually embodiments of large clusters of skills. Profession must be specified by the player, and this attribute covers all the skills logically related to it. Profession (Knight), for instance, would include such pertinent skills as Riding, Jousting, Swordsmanship, Heraldry, Tactics, Court Etiquette, etc. Experience is an attribute that includes all of the other skills a character has gained in life unrelated to Profession. In Fudge, it is simply a matter of determining some standard attributes for all characters and allowing players to designate one or more occupational attributes. As per the standard rules, the GM might allocate a number of free levels equal to half the total number of attributes to be distributed by the players as they choose.

For my own projects, I think I would rename Profession and Experience as Vocation and Avocation (as in Quasi-Standard Descriptive Traits for Sherpa). I would allow up to four Vocations and/or Avocations in any combination, but each one must be specified. (In my games, Vocations and Avocations are functionally identical, but are differentiated for the sake of describing which attributes are, or have been, professional occupations vs. amateur interests.) The rest of the attributes would be Strength, Stamina, Coordination, Intellect, Willpower, and Charisma. The default attribute level for player characters and extraordinary non-player characters is Fair. The default attribute level for ordinary non-player characters is Mediocre. Characters with four vocational/avocational attributes and the usual six inherent attributes would have 5 free levels to distribute amongst them and may further increase some attributes by lowering others. Any character attempting to use a skill not encompassed by one of his Vocations or Avocations has a default level to be determined by the GM based on her assessment of the skill’s difficulty, i.e. Easy skills have a default level of Mediocre, Average skills of Poor, Hard skills of Terrible, and Very Hard skills of Nonexistent. Apart from this, Vocations and Avocations function in all other ways as normal attributes.

This is one option I will probably include in Classic Doctor Who: The Unofficial Role-Playing Game for creating Companions and non-player characters. There is another option I like, however, which I will describe next time.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 5 October 2010.]