Random Fudge Topic 2026-08-17

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.]

Situational Event Generator

The following is a simple table for adjudicating the results of situational rolls concerning large scale events such as weather, economics, politics, sports, entertainment, dating, etc. The details, of course, are the responsibility of the GM.

Result	Effect
Superb	Triumph
Great	Prosperity
Good	Comfort
Fair	Status Quo
Mediocre	Discomfort
Poor	Conflict
Terrible	Disaster

+1 modifier for Good Omens, Divine Blessings
−1 modifier for Evil Omens, Curses

Attributes as Saving Throws

In 2009, I posted an article in Fudgerylog—reposted here in 2014—advocating the "Separation Between Attributes and Skills" that is the standard procedure for Fudge. I continue to hold this opinion, but I thought it might be made more palatable to skeptics if attributes were described in a different way as saving throws (inspired by Steffan O'Sullivan's explanation for one of the three things he uses attributes for in his "Recent Thoughts on Fudge"). Attributes represent your ability to avoid, resist, survive, and withstand anything deleterious. They are your resistance rolls, survival rolls, morale rolls, health rolls, and saving throws. They are your last defense when skills cannot save you, for they are not skills themselves, but characteristics inherent to you. Your skills describe your competence; your attributes describe your essence.

They can save you.

Perhaps they can save us all.

Seriously, though, I think it helps the mind adjust to the Fudge concept of attributes by thinking of them as holistic saving throws instead of the soil in which skill trees are grown.

Fudge Thought of the Day 2025-08-12

Someday, I need to put my GURPS source books to use, and I can think of no better way to do that than to use them with Fudge. Of course, I would fold most of the GURPS skills into broader Fudge skills and jettison any ideas of skill trees or minimum required attribute levels. A direct GURPS-to-Fudge conversion is out of the question. As far as I am concerned, they are system neutral source books.

Fudge Thought of the Day 2025-07-03

Years ago, as I was trying to conceive of a perfect method of calculating an accurate damage system for firearms in Fudge, I was reminded of the elegant system in The Morrow Project. Re-reading those rules, I dove down the rabbit hole of the physics of ballistics and even bought a book on the subject (as well as numerous books of data pertaining to historical firearms)—all so I could devise rules for Fudge. Fudge! No, the irony is not lost on me. Sometimes, sometimes, rules tinkering is the path of madness.

Eventually, my relative sanity was restored and I remembered that the simple solution is always the best solution in Fudge. I shall post my simple solution in Creative Reckoning someday, but in the meantime, never forget: When in doubt, fudge it.

Fudgifying the Fairly Obvious

From the moment I read the Basic Role-Playing pamphlets included in my copies of Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu in the early 1980s, I was fascinated by the skill-based system, but it had one major flaw: common abilities started far below what would be normal for an average person in the real world. Skills reflecting ordinary communication, the senses, or knowledge of one's place of birth were extremely low and unlikely to improve unless they were used frequently (and at a slow rate at that). Granted, I normally do not require rolls for very easy tasks such as observing things, using common modes of transportation, remembering facts about one's local community, or doing things that any able-bodied person can reasonably be expected to do under normal circumstances, but for those cases that do warrant a skill check, I feel that characters ought to have a fair chance of succeeding without having to devote valuable character creation points to those standard abilities. And by a "fair chance" I mean a Fair chance.

Any heavily skill-based role-playing system that is burdened with unnecessary common skills (that is, skills that everyone has) can benefit from a little fudgification. Simply replace the score of any common skill (such as See, Listen, Drive, Climb, Swim, etc.) with an appropriate Fudge trait level. In most cases, make it Fair. If the character has an obvious disadvantage for whatever reason, make it Mediocre. If the character has an obvious advantage, make it Good. Use the normal action resolution rules for any other skills that are used, but whenever these common skills come into play, use the Fudge rules to resolve them. The distribution of results will be more realistic, and the player can spend more points on specialized skills (in systems that use that form of character creation).

In short, Fudge rules are not just for Fudge. If your favorite game flounders in some respect, fudgify it.

Someone Mentioned Fudge in a Podcast

It's a rare occurrence nowadays (as far as I know), but in case you missed the headline, someone mentioned Fudge in a podcast! The podcast in question is Che Webster's Roleplay Rescue, and the episode in question is "Fudging It with Joe from Dekahedron". It didn't teach me anything new, but it's always nice to hear Fudge mentioned (and it might be informative to others).

Global Accessibility Awareness Day Sale at Accessible Games

Accessible Games has announced a 30% discount on all issues of Accessible Gaming Quarterly, the Accessible Guide to RPG Layout, and the Fudge-based role-playing game Survival of the Able from May the 15th through the 22nd in honor of Global Accessibility Awareness Day, which falls on May the 15th. See "30% Off for Global Accessibility Awareness Day" for details.

The 11th Anniversary of Creative Reckoning

Eleven years and two months ago (I have a tendency toward the belated), Creative Reckoning was born from the ashes of Fudgery.net and its blog, Fudgerylog. I wish I could say I am "taking it to eleven" this year (a reference to Spinal Tap), but that would be absurdly unlikely. The lack of news regarding Fudge and its relation to the Open Game License following the OGL scandal has not filled me with confidence. I wish it would adopt a Creative Commons license, but here we are, not knowing exactly where we are going. If the inspiration strikes me, or a reader asks me, I'll publish more Fudge articles, but the grapevine has been eerily quiet of late. Let me know in the comments if you have any thoughts, and keep rolling 4dF.

Any Suggestions?

I must confess it has been getting harder to write Fudge-related articles for Creative Reckoning. My first gaming site (of which this is the continuation) was centered on Fudge, and there seemed to be endless possibilities for articles, but I have reached a point where I need to ask my readers for help. Please leave a suggestion (or multiple suggestions) for any topic you would like me to explore here or any questions you may have regarding anything I have previously published in this blog. I'll even welcome writing prompts. I thank you in advance.

Fudge Is Not Rocket Surgery

Honestly, I do not understand why some people find Fudge action resolution rules so difficult to comprehend and/or accept. It's the essence of simplicity. You have a trait ranked from Terrible to Superb. You have a difficulty ranked from Terrible to Superb. You roll your Fudge dice. The result of the roll increases your trait level, decreases your trait level, or leaves it unmodified. If the trait level after the roll then equals or exceeds the difficulty level, you succeed. If not, you fail. You don't need to worry about arbitrary numerical values. You just need to apply the dice result to your trait level and see if it meets or beats the difficulty. Why does this confuse people?

What They Do in the Meantime

In an overview of three games Richard Woolcock ran recently (in his blog, Zadmar's Savage Stuff), there is a useful hint for anyone running almost any role-playing game (emphasis mine):

Another weakness of my games in the past is that they often felt like they ended abruptly. A friend of mine had a great solution to this when he ran Sundered Skies several years ago, where at the end of the campaign he asked each of us to describe what our characters got up to after the conclusion of the story, and we each had the chance to wrap up our character's storylines. I've attempted to do the same thing since then (although I sometimes forget), but it worked really well in this case, as I always gave the players the "final word" at the end of the adventure, letting them describe the ending.

The player characters are the protagonists of the adventure. It only makes sense to let them describe what they doing at its conclusion. Not only does it give the players a sense of ownership over their own experiences, but it can also lead to a greater feeling of connection with the setting and sow the seeds of future adventures. This is something I will be adopting in my own game-mastering, although I'll probably need to write myself a note and stick it on my GM screen until it becomes a habit.

[This article is cross-posted here in Decidedly Six-Sided.]

Mad Dash

I mentioned previously that I might replace the hyphens with minus signs where appropriate in the Fudge 1995 Edition I specially rendered in HTML (and hyperlinked) for Creative Reckoning. Today, in an effort to lift myself out of an encroaching mood indigo, I did that deed. I also replaced some erroniously set hyphens with en dashes where they occur within inclusive numbers, and I replaced some floating hyphens left over from my last editing foray with em dashes. I know this is of little interest to those without proofreading, editing, and ink in their veins, but trust me—it is a vast, albeit subtle, improvement.

And yes, this means I will undertake correcting those mistakes in the blog at large eventually.

Fudge Thought of the Day 2024-08-16

What would happen if I played TSR's Marvel Super Heroes using Fudge dice? I wouldn't change the rules in any other way because the game is a masterpiece of rules crafting. I would just use Fudge dice with the Marvel Super Heroes equivalent of the trait ladder. I'll try almost anything to avoid having to use a universal table or a combat matrix to resolve things, so I'll give it a go and report back later.

[Edit: I have decided to abandon this experiment. It is not reconcilable with Fudge without a major overhaul of the system. It simply isn't Marvel Super Heroes without the Universal Table and the Battle Effects Table.]

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.