Showing posts with label trait ladder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trait ladder. Show all posts

13 March 2026

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 I feel it has been superseded by "One Step Beyond," but I offer it here as a relic of my earlier Fudge-blogging activities.]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+7Veritably Superb
Superb +3+6Truly Superb
Superb +2+5Really Superb
Superb +1+4Genuinely Superb
Superb+3Superb
Great+2Great
Good+1Good
Fair0Fair
Mediocre−1Mediocre
Poor−2Poor
Terrible−3Terrible
Terrible −1−4Genuinely Terrible
Terrible −2−5Really Terrible
Terrible −3−6Truly Terrible
Terrible −4−7Veritably 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.]

22 March 2025

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?

18 May 2023

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.

24 February 2023

Adjectives Are the Key

I still think the best way to promote my favorite form of Fudge—subjective Fudge—is to concentrate on creating interesting adventures and writing up characters, creatures, places, and things using the traditional trait ladder. In a Fudge adventure, that's all you need, and it instantly renders it system neutral for use with any other role-playing game. Don't worry about which injury system is in effect or how much damage a particular weapon causes. That's a decision for the group playing it. Just rate capabilities and levels of difficulty using those familiar adjectives that everyone understands. That way anyone can use it for any flavor of Fudge or any other role-playing game.

26 June 2022

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+3Not Terrible
Great+2Not Poor
Good+1Not Mediocre
Fair0Not Not Fair
Mediocre-1Not Good
Poor-2Not Great
Terrible-3Not Superb

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

06 March 2022

In Praise of the Trait Ladder

The trait ladder and how it interacts with Fudge dice is probably my favorite feature of Fudge. It is designed for the purpose of enabling the players and the GM to describe aspects of the game (attributes, skills, difficulty levels, etc.) in character without resorting to game jargon. As a result, the trait ladder uses simple adjectives that are indistinguishable from their meanings in the real world. The trait ladder is practical in game and out of game. In fact, I have found it eminently useful as a review scale for my movie reviews in Theoretical Swashbuckling. I find it easier to assess something using language rather than converting it to a measurement of one to five "stars" or a blunt "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." How much easier is it to grasp that a character's skill is Good as opposed to 15 or +2 on whatever scale (or scales) a game happens to use?

As far as I am concerned, the trait ladder is Superb. Nay, Legendary.

13 February 2022

The Simple Trait Ladder

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:
Superb
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible
To 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).

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.

19 June 2021

I Am Not a Number! I Am a Free-Form Adjective!

I think the key to better Fudge is to divorce the trait ladder from numerical values.* Think in terms of the adjectives and what they mean to your character and the adventure. If you were to consider it from the character's point of view, would you really assess your attempt at a task to be +1 or −2 or any other number? If Fudge is intended to be a game that maximizes role-playing and minimizes out-of-character terminology, why should it be cluttered with the distraction of unnecessary numbers?

Personally, if I have a choice to have or not have a headache, I prefer to choose the latter. Fudge without numbers equals pain-free role-playing for me.



* By "better," I mean more intuitive, freer flowing. Your interpretation may differ.

07 April 2020

Comfy Trait Ladders 2

It is all well and good to rename levels of the trait ladder in order to maximize emotional comfort (q.v.), but some may find the notion of describing "Poor" as "Fine" to be a trifle too cloying. To amend this (and simultaneously tilt the ladder even more toward the positive pole), a new and improved optimistic “trait ladder” has been devised, known as…

The New & Improved Optimistic Trait Ladder

Fudge Traits#Optimistic Traits
 +6Magnificent!
 +5Super!
 +4Great!
Superb+3Excellent!
Great+2Good!
Good+1Very Fine!
Fair0Fine!
Mediocre-1Somewhat Fine!
Poor-2Marginally Fine!
Terrible-3Almost Marginally Fine!


As you can see, the less wonderful levels have been renamed to reflect their decreased desirability, and the upper levels have been lifted to the loftier heights they deserve. Also suitable for game adaptations of Candide.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 31 August 2011.]

05 April 2020

Comfy Trait Ladders

For those players who are disturbed by the idea of selecting a skill or attribute at a beginner’s level of competency due to the perceived stigma attached to not being an expert in all things, and for those GMs who haven’t the heart to describe a player’s failures in negative terms, I offer the following optional trait ladder scientifically designed to remove the taint of merely fair performances, general mediocrity, poor self image, and consequences deemed “terrible.” Instead, all trait levels are specially chosen to encourage positive reinforcement and cushion the trauma of disappointment. In fact, I predict the next step in the evolution of role-playing will be to eliminate the possibility of failure entirely! Won’t that be exciting?

The Positive Reinforcement Trait Ladder

Fudge Traits#Happy Positive Traits :-)
Superb+3Magnificent!
Great+2Super!
Good+1Great!
Fair0Excellent!
Mediocre-1Good!
Poor-2Fine!
Terrible-3Acceptable!


Alternatively, for those who have difficulty memorizing words, I present…

The Good Trait Ladder

Fudge Traits#Good Traits
Superb+3Good!!!
Great+2Good!!
Good+1Good!
Fair0Good
Mediocre-1Goood
Poor-2Gooood
Terrible-3Goooood

As you can see, there is only one word in this trait ladder, modified upwards by adding exclamation points and downwards by adding vowels. In play, exclamation points are vocalized by increasing volume accordingly, and additional vowels are expressed by lengthening the word as it is spoken. It is nothing if not Goooood.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 30 August 2011.]

02 May 2016

The Very Idea 2: More Variations of the Trait Ladder

[This article from 2011, which is the sequel of this article from 2006, addresses a perennial topic in Fudge that I discuss more seriously in One Step Beyond.]

What started as a joke continues as a joke, and I make no recommendations whatsoever to use any of these unconventional trait ladders in Fudge (except the first). In fact, I think it is counterproductive to introduce a multitude of different trait ladders as it does nothing but create confusion. Nonetheless, here are four more for your amusement.

The first is a slight modification of the Not-So-Very-Varied Trait Ladder. Some players don't feel quite right about not having a Legendary trait level, so instead of adding Very to each additional level above Superb, Legendary is situated above Superb and each level above that adds another Very. The same is done with sub-Terrible trait levels and the substitution of Abysmal.

Fudge Traits#Epic Not-So-Very-Varied Traits
Superb +4+7Very Very Very Legendary
Superb +3+6Very Very Legendary
Superb +2+5Very Legendary
Superb +1+4Legendary
Superb+3Superb
Great+2Great
Good+1Good
Fair0 Fair
Mediocre-1Mediocre
Poor-2Poor
Terrible-3Terrible
Terrible -1-4Abysmal
Terrible -2-5Very Abysmal
Terrible -3-6Very Very Abysmal
Terrible -4-7Very Very Very Abysmal


The All American Trait Ladder

Here is the trait ladder for Americans of the Great Depression and Second World War. This is the language of gangsters and coppers, flappers and mols, GIs and MPs, the Three Stooges and Our Gang. It's the Common Man's trait ladder, and it's Swell, see? And don't let any Lousy bum tell you differently. Besides, that palooka is only a So-So boxer and you're, well, you're O.K. with your mitts. Sure, you can take him. Oh, you mean the bruiser over there? He's Pretty Good in a fight. Nice knowing ya, pal. Good luck. Gotta go. So long!

Fudge Traits#All American Traits
Superb+3Terrific
Great+2Swell
Good+1Pretty Good
Fair0O.K.
Mediocre-1So-So
Poor-2Lousy
Terrible-3Rotten


The Proper Lady's Trait Ladder

To suggest that a proper lady is only able to distinguish between what is proper and improper would be far from correct. A proper lady has an extensive vocabulary with which to describe her trials and tribulations as well as her triumphs. It would be most vexing indeed if one were limited to a mere two words; two words would be less than advantageous if they were one's sole means of supporting oneself in a cruel world. Turbulent is the life of a proper lady who is forced to contend with the daily indignities of dealing with Dreary household servants, common labourers with Ghastly manners, and nieces who are Atrociously difficult to match with gentleman callers. O, to be extricated from that undeserving fate and elevated to her proper place! -- such is the conundrum uppermost in her thoughts. A proper lady, a lady of society, ought to be able to expect, quite reasonably, to concern herself exclusively with attending Lovely parties in the company of other personages of importance like herself.

Fudge Traits#Traits for Proper Ladies
Superb+3Divine
Great+2Lovely
Good+1Acceptable
Fair0Tolerable
Mediocre-1Dreary
Poor-2Ghastly
Terrible-3Atrocious


The Cold and Analytical Trait Ladder

[To be recited in a monotone.]

This trait ladder is stripped of unnecessary sentimentality. Do not expect this trait ladder to generate an emotional response or any other human weakness. The function of this trait ladder is to achieve Maximum efficiency. Inefficiency must be eliminated. To operate at less than Standard Capacity is to be inefficient. Most human capabilities are Below Standard; many are Well Below Standard. Therefore, humans are inefficient. Inefficiency must be eliminated. Now processing data...

Fudge Traits#Cold & Analytical Traits
Superb+3Maximum [Capacity]
Great+2Well Above Standard [Capacity]
Good+1Above Standard [Capacity]
Fair0Standard [Capacity]
Mediocre-1Below Standard [Capacity]
Poor-2Well Below Standard [Capacity]
Terrible-3Minimum [Capacity]

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net in 2006.]

30 April 2016

The Very Idea: Variations of the Trait Ladder

[This article from 2006 addresses a perennial topic in Fudge that I discuss more seriously in One Step Beyond.]

From time to time one hears complaints about the trait ladder of Fudge being "broken" because the adjectives do not extend above Superb or below Terrible, whereas results may occur beyond these ranges, especially when characters possess Great or Superb traits. I consider any result above Superb to be an extension of Superb, and it only matters how Superb if one is involved in an opposed action in which more than one character gets a Superb or higher result. If it is a matter of combat, then I generally just deal with the numbers in order to arrive at a relative degree. If the conflict is not combat-related, then I merely state results in terms of one being "more Superb" than the other. Some may balk at such vague descriptions, so for those who desire "hard and fast rules" preserving the adjectival integrity of the trait ladder, I offer the following simple remedy that will extend the ladder without relying on numerical modifiers or adding more words to memorize. All one has to do is add "Very" for each level above Superb or below Terrible. That's all there is to it. If your Superb Swordsman rolls +3 in a fight against a Superb Axe-wielder who rolls +2, then you now know that your Very Very Very Superb result defeats his merely Very Very Superb result. And whatever you may say about a Terrible combatant who rolls -4, it's a Very Very Very Very Terrible result.

Fudge Traits#Not-So-Very-Varied Traits
Superb +4+7Very Very Very Very Superb
Superb +3+6Very Very Very Superb
Superb +2+5Very Very Superb
Superb +1+4Very Superb
Superb+3Superb
Great+2Great
Good+1Good
Fair0 Fair
Mediocre-1Mediocre
Poor-2Poor
Terrible-3Terrible
Terrible -1-4Very Terrible
Terrible -2-5Very Very Terrible
Terrible -3-6Very Very Very Terrible
Terrible -4-7Very Very Very Very Terrible


The Good, the Bad, and the Adequate

To be honest, all results really boil down to being either good, bad, or adequate, or degrees of the first two. To extend the idea presented above, one could center the trait ladder at Adequate, with Good at +1 and Bad at -1. For each level above Good or below Bad, one adds "Very." A Great result is now Very Good, a Superb result is Very Very Good, and a Terrible -1 result is Very Very Very Bad.

Fudge Traits#Good to Bad Traits
Superb +4+7Very Very Very Very Very Very Good
Superb +3+6Very Very Very Very Very Good
Superb +2+5Very Very Very Very Good
Superb +1+4Very Very Very Good
Superb+3Very Very Good
Great+2Very Good
Good+1Good
Fair0Adequate
Mediocre-1Bad
Poor-2Very Bad
Terrible-3Very Very Bad
Terrible -1-4Very Very Very Bad
Terrible -2-5Very Very Very Very Bad
Terrible -3-6Very Very Very Very Very Bad
Terrible -4-7Very Very Very Very Very Very Bad


The English Gentleman's Trait Ladder

To reflect a more civilized point of view, one may opt for the famous capacity for both understatement and overstatement that is characteristic of the archetypical English gentleman. Whilst one may admit that French cuisine is Quite Sufficient, one can state with satisfaction that English cooking is simply Smashing. Similarly, whereas the Bataan Death March was a Rather Bad situation, the service in this restaurant is Appalling!

Fudge Traits#Traits for Gentlemen
Superb+3Quite Sufficient
Great+2Jolly Good
Good+1Splendid
Fair0Smashing
Mediocre-1Appalling
Poor-2Dreadful
Terrible-3Rather Bad


Big Brother's Newspeak Trait Ladder

George Orwell's 1984, written as a warning of the dangers of totalitarianism, has a built-in trait ladder for those who wish (for whatever incomprehensible reason) to adventure in his nightmarish dystopia. Note that there is no equivalent trait for Fair in this trait ladder. The concept of "Fair" is a thoughtcrime. Report at once to the Ministry of Love.

Fudge Traits#Newspeak Traits
Superb+3doubleplusgood
Great+2plusgood
Good+1good
Fair0[not applicable]
Mediocre-1ungood
Poor-2plusungood
Terrible-3doubleplusungood

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net in 2006.]

31 March 2016

One Step Beyond

One of the things Fudge does very well is minimize jargon so players can concentrate on role-playing and creative problem-solving. Replacing numbers with adjectives is one of the ways this is achieved. This enables players and GMs alike to describe characters, actions, and situations in terms that are equally meaningful to both the player perspective and the character perspective. This breaks down, however, when a roll generates a result that is above or below the standard trait ladder. It defeats the purpose of the adjectival trait ladder if one must resort to jargon to describe likely results, such as "Terrible −1" or "Superb +2." Surely there is an alternative. This is the windmill at which many Fudge gamers have tilted, and now it is my turn. Again.

A common response to the problem is to extend the trait ladder with additional adjectives. Alas, this complicates matters, and makes it more difficult to memorize and internalize the trait ladder. One of my solutions was to arrange the extended traits in alphabetical order. Even with this fix the extended trait ladder is cumbersome and one is forced to resort to adjectives that are really only synonyms for Superb and Terrible. One of my other solutions was to add one "Very" for each level above Superb or below Terrible, e.g., "Very Terrible" or "Very Very Superb." This, of course, can quickly become ridiculous and distracting in itself.

Then it struck me like a song by Madness. What if we merely translated each extended level as "a step beyond"? Instead of Terrible −1, the character performed One Step Beyond Terrible. Instead of Superb +2, the character's achievement was Two Steps Beyond Superb. This is something characters themselves could pass off as a figure of speech, but which is directly meaningful in game terms and very easy to remember. Technically, the math is still there, but it sounds like something a person could say outside of a role-playing game. "That stunt wasn't just superb. It was three steps beyond superb!"

Four Steps Beyond Superb
Three Steps Beyond Superb
Two Steps Beyond Superb
One Step Beyond Superb
Superb
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible
One Step Beyond Terrible
Two Steps Beyond Terrible
Three Steps Beyond Terrible
Four Steps Beyond Terrible

Maybe it's a stretch, but I think it's crazy enough that it just might work.

05 April 2014

Simplicity Equals Power

Fudge is simple. Simplicity is, in fact, its chief strength. Its simplicity is key to fulfilling one of its major design goals: to be "a vehicle for good role-playing" as opposed to rule-playing (see Steffan O'Sullivan's Fudge Designer's Notes). The crux of understanding Fudge and taking full advantage of its strengths is the proper use of the "single, easy to remember, non-chart-bound game mechanic to handle all actions that need resolution" at its core. How one approaches and implements this rule will affect how easy it will be to learn, teach, and play the game.

It all begins with the trait ladder. The trait ladder can be altered to suit one's taste, but for the purpose of this demonstration, let us concern ourselves with the trait ladder offered in the rules:

Superb
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible

Traits, whether they are attributes or skills, are rated with an adjective on the trait ladder above. Ordinarily, a character performs according to his or her trait level. If, however, there are extenuating circumstances that render an action more or less challenging, then the GM can require the player to make a roll. Fudge dice, when used in an attribute roll or skill roll, modify the character's trait level. That is, one's trait level denotes one's average performance under ordinary conditions. The dice result modifies this to produce one's performance under other conditions (the rolled degree).

What this means in play is that a player reads his or her attribute or skill level on the character sheet, locates that level on the trait ladder, and moves up or down on the ladder in accordance with the result of the dice roll (anywhere from −4 to +4). If Player Character A has Good Coordination and rolls +1 on 4dF (four Fudge dice), then the character performed one level better than Good: Great. If the same player rolled −3, then the character performed three levels worse than Good: Poor. All of this can be done without thought of mathematics, which means it is easier to stay in character and easier to focus on the adventure.

Knowing the difference between two rolled degrees in an opposed action (the relative degree) requires a minimum of math. Merely count all the levels between the low rolled degree and the high rolled degree including the high rolled degree. That's the relative degree. For example, in a duel, Player Character A is Great at Fencing and Player Character B is Fair. Player A rolls 0 for a rolled degree of Great. Player B rolls −1 for a rolled degree of Mediocre. Starting at Mediocre and counting up to Great, the relative degree is 3. There is no addition or subtraction required, just the ability to count. There may be minimal math if one adds the relative degree to an offensive damage modifier (weapon strength) and subtracts a defensive damage modifier (armor) to arrive at a number that corresponds to a wound level, but even this is optional, and in any event it would be the GM's job to calculate (or fudge), not the player's.

The elegance of this core game mechanic and its power to produce results without the intrusion of out-of-character game terminology is what makes it the best role-playing game to introduce to prospective role-players as well as veteran gamers who want to spend their scarce free time actually role-playing rather than flipping through rule books.

Some like to dispense with the adjectives and resort to using numbers only (i.e., Terrible is −3, Fair is 0, Superb is +3, etc.). The problem with this is that they lose sight of what the game mechanic is meant to achieve. Instead of using the roll to modify a trait, they use the trait to modify the roll. At that point, all rolls become, in fact, situational rolls, and all traits are reduced to being mere modifiers instead of values in their own right.* Aside from the unnecessary imposition of calculations, there is nothing added to the game. It doesn't make the game faster or easier. It does, however, detract from role-playing. I am not one to infringe on anyone's right to play the game any way they like, but it makes it less Fudge to me, and it fails to play to the game's greatest strengths. At its best, Fudge is the most accessible role-playing game ever devised, and that is because it was designed from the beginning to facilitate role-playing by eliminating or minimizing anything that distracted one from the role-playing experience itself. New players instinctively grasp the concepts behind the core game mechanic. Confusing situational rolls with trait rolls unnecessarily complicates a simple (and effective) mechanic and risks frustrating new players. Embrace adjectives! (They're Superb.)

* Situational rolls are meant to determine events that are unaffected by the actions of player characters or are only minimally affected. The GM rolls 4dF, optionally applies some modifiers based on the situation, and reads the result as a rolled degree. (See 3.1 Action Resolution Terms and 3.7 NPC Reactions.)