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 I feel it has been superseded by "One Step Beyond," but I offer it here as a relic of my earlier Fudge-blogging activities.]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.

Sherpa: d6 Variant

This article is intended for use with Sherpa, a role-playing game by Steffan O'Sullivan published by Two Tigers Games. Access to Sherpa is necessary to utilize these rules.

The d6 Variant of Sherpa utilizes a standard six-sided die or d6 dice-rolling app instead of a ten-sided die or d10 simulator (also known as a digital stopwatch). Any rules not specified below are unchanged from standard Sherpa.

3. Character Creation

Each attribute starts at a base allowance of 2.

The GM allots a number of points to each player with which to improve the attributes:

• 0 to 3 points for "Average Folk,"
• 4 to 6 points for Potential Heroes, and
• 7+ points for True Heroes.

Attributes may range from 1 to 6.

7. Action Resolution

7a. Modifiers

• Overwhelming advantage: +2
• Significant advantage: +1
• Average situation: 0
• Significant disadvantage: −1
• Overwhelming disadvantage: −2

7b. Randomizer

Use a standard six-sided die marked 1-6 or use a d6 dice-rolling app.

7d. Wounds

The damage level may be announced as:

• no effect (just a scratch or bruise),
• a light wound (1 damage or stun point),
• a moderate wound (2 damage or stun points), or
• a severe wound (3+ damage or stun points).

Fudging Blades

"Fudging Blades: Swashbuckling Combat for Fudge!" (from SpiritMusketeer's Blog) is a simple swashbuckling combat system for Fudge by Thijs Krijger and Jay Shaffstall with help from François Letarte. It lacks the detail of simulationist fencing rules, but it appears to be relatively fast-paced. It looks promising.

[This article has been cross-posted here in Theoretical Swashbuckling.]

The Difficulty with Difficulty Levels

Once upon a time, a commonly heard complaint about Fudge amongst those who enjoyed writing about it in the Fudge List (an Internet mailing list of longish ago) was that it was counterintuitive for difficulty levels to use the Fudge trait ladder. Why, they opined, would someone say a task has a Good difficulty (for instance)? It sounds wrong, they insisted.

I addressed this issue in 2010 in an article entitled "Why Is It Difficult?" (originally posted in Fudgerylog, the blog connected to my no-longer-extant site Fudgery.net; reposted in Creative Reckoning in 2018). My view has not changed on the matter, but in case there are those who just cannot accept it, I can think of one acceptable alternative chart of difficulty levels.

Behold!

Difficulty Level	Alternative Term
Superb	Very High
Great	High
Good	Moderately High
Fair	Moderate
Mediocre	Moderately Low
Poor	Low
Terrible	Very Low

This way, instead of saying "The task has a Good difficulty" (their strange phrasing) or "The task has a difficulty level of Good" (my superior phrasing) or "Jumping the chasm has a minimum success level of Good" (also one of mine), one could say, "The task is of Moderately High difficulty," which everyone will instinctively know (I assume) requires at least a Good result to accomplish.

Now, is that difficult?

Card-Based Action Resolution for Sherpa

This article is intended for use with Sherpa, a role-playing game by Steffan O'Sullivan published by Two Tigers Games. Access to Sherpa is necessary to utilize these rules.

Card-Based Action Resolution is an alternative to the stopwatch-based Action Resolution, p. 12 in the Sherpa rules.

Preparation: Take a standard deck of cards. Remove all Jokers and face cards. Shuffle the remaining cards. Place one Joker at the bottom of the deck.

Execution: Whenever it is necessary to generate a random number, draw the top card, read the number, and place it at the bottom of the deck.

Reshuffle: When you draw the Joker card, remove it, shuffle the deck, and replace it at the bottom of the deck. Return to Execution.

Note: Using this method, the GM can easily show the players the result of an action. In an opposed action, the GM can retain both cards for comparison until it is resolved.

Fudge Points and Your Table

In Fudge, five options are given for the use of Fudge points. The rule states, "Here are some suggested ways to use them—the GM can create her own uses, of course. A GM may allow as few or many of these options as she wishes—the players should ask her before assuming they can do something with Fudge Points."

Immediately, I wonder: How many GMs allow all of the options versus some of the options? How many use only one? How many expand or replace the options with their own? Do they ask for the input of their players? Do they vote on it?

Four or five different options is a bit much to keep in mind, and I have a feeling most players would forget to use them when it would be most advantageous. It's also a thing that removes one from the in-character state, which I would consider a flaw in the system. I think it would be better to limit the use of Fudge points to one or two options in order to better internalize the rule and reduce its out-of-character impact.

Regardless of the number of options used, I think every character sheet ought to have them listed close to the Fudge points entry. The longer the list of options, the more crucial it is to give players a visible reminder.

I welcome any comments on this topic.

"and Bake for 15 Minutes" Fudge

Over the years, I have been gravitating more and more toward simpler, more streamlined Fudge rules of my own design, and I am always pleased to see others heading in the same direction. Today, I discovered another Fudge variant in line with my preferences entitled "and Bake for 15 Minutes" Fudge. Designed by Doug Bolden, it is based on the concept of "phrases" as the core of character creation. I am always interested in systems that take this approach, and I feel it's worth a playtest.

Daily Movement Rates

Sometimes a GM may find it easier to describe movement rates in terms of the distance that can be covered under various circumstances over the course of a day, instead of determining exact speeds and hours traveled. This is especially true when the mode of travel is primitive. Movement rates for vehicles may be found in various vehicle descriptions.

Modes of Travel
Marching	40 miles (64 km) per day
Mounted	60 miles (96 km) per day
Caravan	20 miles (32 km) per day

Terrain Modifiers
Road	Normal
Offroad	× .75
Forest	× .5
Jungle	× .25
Swamp	× .25
Hilly	× .5
Rocky	× .5
Mountainous	× .25

Weather Modifiers
Medium Rain	× .75
Heavy Rain	× .5
Medium Snow	× .5
Heavy Snow	× .25
Sandstorm	× .1
Blizzard	× .1

In the charts above, Modes of Travel refers to unmodified daily movement rates. Marching assumes a disciplined, steady pace on foot. Mounted refers to travel by horse, pony, camel, or other similar beasts. Caravan refers to travel by wagon, cart, or simple walking.

The movement rate is modified by conditions of terrain and weather. Terrain modifiers are applied first by multiplying the movement rate by the appropriate modifier. The product is then multiplied by any extant weather modifiers. For example, if a party is marching over hilly terrain in the snow, the movement rate would be 5 miles per day (20 × .5 = 10; 10 × .5 = 5).

In swamps or mountainous terrain, mounted characters move at the marching movement rate.

Certain obstacles, such as a river to be forded, may delay progress, but the time lost depends on individual circumstances to be determined by the GM.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net in 2006.]

[This article is not specific to Fudge, of course, but it is of universal utility (much like Fudge) and originally appeared in Fudgery.net, which I think is sufficient justification to re-post it in Creative Reckoning.]

When Best and Worst Meet in Singular Fudge

In Singular Fudge (q.v.), under normal conditions, without modifiers or Fudge point expenditure, it would seem that a character with a Below Average trait can never do better than Average, and a character with an Above Average trait can never do worse than Average. So, what happens in an opposed roll when the Below Average contestant rolls the best against an Above Average contestant who rolls the worst? Is the best the Below Average contestant can expect a draw?

In such cases (and in such cases only), the tie is immediately followed by a roll of 1dF on equal standing by each contestant. That is to say, each rolls 1dF and the result is the relative degree of the opposed roll in favor of whoever rolls highest (unless the relative degree is 0, which case the tie stands). This applies to any kind of opposed roll, combat-related or otherwise.

Singular Fudge

The Premise

Is Fudge viable when it is restricted to 1dF and a five-level trait ladder?

Character Creation

Regardless of the method of character creation and the kinds of traits used, there are only three levels available for any trait: Above Average, Average, and Below Average.

One simple method is to allow two traits at Above Average for every one trait at Below Average. Any trait not listed is considered Average.

The Trait Levels

Far Above Average
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Far Below Average

The Die

The only rolling technique is 1dF, so the range is always –1, 0, +1, with a 33% chance of any given result. The only way for a Below Average trait to reach Above Average or Far Above Average performance is through GM-sanctioned modifiers or the expenditure of Fudge points.

N.B. These rules have not been playtested.

Stating Mediocrity

I have mentioned that Mediocre is the default trait level in plain traits and Elementary Fudge, and that any Mediocre trait need not be specified on a character sheet, but I failed to mention that there may be cases in which it might be advisable to list Mediocre traits. There are, in fact, those who are Mediocre at their professions, and although anyone could conceivably fill their positions at the same level of inadequacy if pressed, it is nonetheless a defining aspect of their character by virtue of the time they invest in it. Jane Doe is a Great Martial Artist and a Good Amateur Detective, and it may seem irrelevant that she is a Mediocre Pizza Chef, but if her primary occupation is working at a pizzeria (that may or may not serve as a headquarters for her fellow sleuths), then "Pizza Chef: Mediocre" would be an important fact to record. It's how she pays her bills and it's one of her motivations to take risks in her search for a more rewarding life. She may not be good at it, but it partially defines her.

Random Attribute Generation for Fudge

Sometimes it is more fun to let chance dictate the attributes of a player character or non-player character rather than settling for default trait levels. Fudge has its own official suggestions for Random Character Creation with attributes generated via 2d6. Having started the hobby with the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set and Expert Set c. 1981, however, I have a preference for the values generated via 3d6. This would yield the following results:

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

This is fine for standard Fudge, but if mediocrity is the baseline, I think the following might be more useful:

3d6	Fudge
18	Superb
16-17	Great
13-15	Good
11-12	Fair
6-10	Mediocre
4-5	Poor
3	Terrible

The Baseline Is Mediocrity

In standard Fudge, the default trait levels for attributes and skills are Fair and Poor respectively, but I ask you: Are most people really of Fair intelligence, physical fitness, or charm? Or are they, in fact, Mediocre? Fair can generally be assumed to mean "good enough," but in my observations of the world, I think it's more accurate to say that the general pattern of human behavior is Mediocre, or "needs improvement." "Good enough" is rarely achieved without effort or luck. Mediocrity, in reality, is the baseline.

If the baseline of attributes truly is Mediocre, can the same be said of skills? Skills are a more complex matter as their difficulty varies, and I doubt there is any system that can accurately reflect all the factors involved in measuring them, so I think it is more useful to frame the question not in terms of what is most realistic, but rather what is more consistent with the genre or medium of inspiration. The baseline of skills in a fictional work tends to be Mediocre or Nonexistent. Either a character has no chance of practising a skill, or the character can just muddle through with a possibility of doing well enough to pass for success. A trait level of Poor or Terrible is reserved for those who have a notable deficiency beyond the human average.

If both attributes and skills have the same default trait level of Mediocre, what is the point of differentiating them? In my opinion, there is none. I fold them both into plain traits or descriptors. Others, however, may prefer to distinguish between the two in terms of how they are acquired and the method by which they can be improved. At any rate, I think Mediocre is the proper baseline. It reduces unnecessary complexity and facilitates more interesting play. And it does so without altering the standard trait ladder. Just drop the average by one rung. Problem solved.

On Fudge Points and Character Development

There is a variety of ways to handle Fudge points and character development and whether there is a relationship between the two, and I think I have settled on a perfect balance for my own games. First, they are separate. They do not influence one another in any fashion. Second, I minimize the bookkeeping. Any meta-rule I can live without is happily jettisoned.

Fudge points are handled, for the most part, in the standard manner. They are first acquired at character creation and then awarded at the end of a session, but I may also award them during the session if circumstances are appropriate (such as the accomplishment of a particularly daring deed). They may be spent or saved at the player's discretion.

For character development, I opt for the subjective method, which requires no tracking of experience points. Additionally, I allow development through training.

Why am I writing about this? Because I know there is a temptation to create a tension between Fudge points and experience, to make them one and the same or to allow players to spend one in order to purchase the other, but I think it overcomplicates the game and blurs the distinctions in an unhelpful way. Fudge points at their best are a fun way to use a resource to pull off impossible feats or narrow escapes. Subjective character development is an organic way to improve a character without resorting to out-of-character considerations. I can perceive no good reason to link them. And that is how I have decided to handle it henceforth.

Locational Wound Tracks

The wound system in Fudge has always fluctuated — for me — between too much and too little, and I have tinkered with it in many different ways over the years. (One of which, dealing with pulp cliffhangers, has been lost to the Internet Void.) Now, I am grasping once again for that elusive perfect wound system. Will this one meet my needs?

I am calling this method Locational Wound Tracks. Whenever an opponent is successfully struck, the location is noted whether by called shot, random determination, or a default target area (such as the torso). Each location has its own wound track. For the sake of simplicity, the locations are left leg, right leg, left arm, right arm, torso, and head. Damage (and its effect) is applied normally, but for that location only. If, for example, the right arm is Hurt, any action requiring the use of the right arm receives a -1 penalty. An Incapacitating wound will render an arm or leg useless, but such a wound to the torso will cause one to collapse and the same wound to the head will cause one to lose consciousness. Near Death wounds will likewise vary in severity and effect depending on the location affected.

The upshot of this is that wounds are not regarded as equal. A wound to the leg will not have exactly the same effect as a wound to the head. The torso is more likely to be armored than the arms. And a combatant might choose to aim a blow at the least protected area of an opponent.

As for healing, one could rule that a successful result on a healing skill heals all wounds the same number of levels, or one could require a separate roll for each wound treated. Healing through rest heals all wounds at the same rate (one wound level per week of rest).

Pertinent rules links

• Wound Levels
• Recording Wounds
• Hit Location

[The above is similar to something I wrote in 2005 (Alternate Hit Location), but I think it's a bit more straightforward and, therefore, easier to implement.]

Negative Reinforcement Trait Ladder

Do your players and/or their characters need to be taken down a peg or two? Are you tired of coddling them with comfy trait ladders such as this or this or even the standard trait ladder? Then spread a little darkness with

The Negative Reinforcement Trait Ladder

Fudge Traits	#	Dull Insensitive Traits
Superb	+3	Not Terrible
Great	+2	Not Poor
Good	+1	Not Mediocre
Fair	0	Not Not Fair
Mediocre	-1	Not Good
Poor	-2	Not Great
Terrible	-3	Not Superb

Now you can be unimpressed with any result! Roll and be underwhelmed!

Rulespotting 2022-06-04

In Fudge, as with most role-playing games, but especially Fudge, the best rules are the simplest rules. Most of the fan-created Fudge material I've read over the years have been of the blotation device variety — bloated rules that slow the play of the game. Once in a while, though, I stumble upon an optional rule that can be quickly read, easily understood, and easily implemented. Best of Three Contests for Fudge is one such rule.