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.

Roll or Let It Stand

A common bit of advice shared amongst Fudge GMs is not to call for a skill check every time a player character uses a skill. Save it for situations where the consequences really matter. In all other cases, assume that the skill is performed at the character's skill level with no roll needed. I agree with this advice, but I think it could be fun to create a new rule with a twist based on it. I call this rule Roll or Let It Stand.

Roll or Let It Stand

Any player who wishes to use a skill has the option to roll or let it stand. If the player chooses to roll, then there is a chance to exceed the listed skill level, but at the cost of possibly falling short. If the player chooses to let it stand, then the character performs at the listed skill level and no roll is required. This only applies to unopposed actions. Opposed actions being competitive by nature always require rolls.

An Ode to CityBooks

Fudge, under the right circumstances, is a worthy universal translator of role-playing games largely due to its mission of omitting or reducing out-of-character terminology and relying as much as possible on adjectives instead of numbers. Prior to Fudge, Flying Buffalo Inc. launched the "All-System" Catalyst Series of role-playing supplements meant to be usable with any role-playing game, and it, too, promoted the use of adjectives with its own trait ladder. There were multiple lines in the Catalyst Series, but here I would like to give special attention to the CityBook line.

Beginning with CityBook I: Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker in 1982, the CityBook line concentrated on "businesses, personalities, and scenarios for city-based play." As it says in the introduction to CityBook II: Port o' Call:

As with all Catalyst books, everything is described in "generic" terms, that is without game system specific statistics. CityBooks are written to provide a variety of people, places and things for your games. It is up to you as the Game Master to provide the numbers that will make these people, places and things fit into your particular world. The coding system is explained in the section entitled "GM Guidelines," yet you should feel free to modify or edit establishments as you see fit.

As far as general attributes are concerned, the section notes:

It isn't necessary to give each non-player character in CityBook complete attributes such as Power, Luck, Wisdom, and so forth. However, should you choose to do so you will note in the character descriptions such phrases as "very strong," "quick," "stupid," "beautiful," etc. By noting these phrases and reflecting them in the attributes, you should come out with appropriate statistics for the person in question.

The coding system is applied to such things as Fighting Prowess, Magic Ability, and even the effectiveness of locks. In the table below, I compare the coding system to the Fudge trait ladder as I would convert it.

Fudge	Catalyst
Superb	Excellent
Great	Very Good
Good	Good
Fair	Fair
Mediocre	Average
Poor	Poor
Terrible	Poor

It's a nearly perfect match that makes the entire line instantly compatible with Fudge. If you need a location, an encounter, or an adventure seed to drop into an existing adventure or campaign, the CityBooks deliver with personality, and the contributers include such gaming luminaries as Dave Arneson, Liz Danforth, Larry DiTillio, Ed Heil, Rick Loomis, John Nephew, Jim "Bear" Peters, Michael A. Stackpole, B. Dennis Sustare, and many others.

I regret that I have only one (CityBook II) as a printed book, but I'm happy to report that all of them are available as PDFs via DriveThruRPG (and I now own the rest of them in that format). For your convenience, here is the complete list of CityBooks presented as links to the PDFs:

1. CityBook I: Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker
2. CityBook II: Port o' Call
3. CityBook III: Deadly Nightside
4. CityBook IV: On the Road
5. CityBook V: Sideshow
6. CityBook VI: Up Town
7. CityBook VII: King's River Bridge

Some Thoughts on the List of Attributes by Game

Today, as I added three new games to the List of Attributes by Game, I realized it (the list) might be a suitable subject for my minimum once monthly article for Creative Reckoning (a task that has become increasingly challenging as I juggle the same requirement for my other four gaming blogs). The list has been growing since I first compiled it in 2004 for its original home, the defunct Fudgery.net, but its growth has been far outpaced by the explosion of new role-playing games over the last few years, due, in part, to the increasing ease of self-publishing via PDFs and print-on-demand services. Including every role-playing game published in every imaginable format is an impossibility (for me, at least), so I have decided to list a few requirements for inclusion.

Requirement #1: The game must be a role-playing game. If role-playing a character is not the primary purpose of the game, it does not belong on this list.

Requirement #2: At least one of the game's formats must be physical, whether it is professionally published, self-published, or printed on demand through a legitimate service. I reserve the right to make exceptions for my own reasons.

Requirement #3: There is no third requirement. I thought there would be more than two, but I guess I was wrong. I reserve the right to add more requirements as I see fit.

If you know of a game I ought to add, please leave a comment on the list's page and I will consider it.

Survival of the Able Kickstarter Live

Jacob Wood's Kickstarter project for Survival of the Able is now live through 1 November 2021. Details are available here.

Survival of the Able Kickstarter Imminent

Jacob Wood's Fudge-related role-playing game, Survival of the Able, will be returning to Kickstarter soon. It is, in his words, "a game about people with disabilities working together to overcome a zombie plague." To learn more, read this update.

Looking for Clues

An investigative role-playing game requires commitment from both the players and the GM to be a success. It is reasonable to expect more from a player than "I use my Spot Hidden skill" or even "I search the room." Players have skills just as their characters do, and role-playing is a far richer experience when they use those skills. Investigation should be described by the player in sufficient detail that anyone can imagine what the character is doing and the GM can ascertain whether any clues, if extant, would be discovered. It is also reasonable to expect more from a GM than "Roll your Spot Hidden skill." If a player has done what is necessary to be reasonably assured that a clue, if extant, would be discovered, then no roll should be required. If the clue is there and the effort is made to find it, it should be considered found. It's shocking in its simplicity.

The designers of Trail of Cthulhu may consider the rules they crafted a solution to the alleged problem inherent in Call of Cthulhu, i.e. "one bad die roll can derail an adventure," but that rests on the presumption that the existence of an investigative skill roll requires making an investigative skill roll. I would argue that these rolls, like other detection rolls in other role-playing games (q.v.), serve mainly as a second chance to make a discovery when a player mistakenly neglects to properly investigate an area through which he or she passes. As long as the GM and the players are doing their share of the role-playing and providing the necessary descriptions, then nothing can derail an adventure except the actions of the player characters.

As for the "solution" proposed in Trail of Cthulhu, I think never having to roll an investigative skill is just as misguided as always having to roll an investigative skill. In cases where player skill comes into play, such as describing how one searches a room, results should depend on neither dice rolls nor automatic success, but on the logical consequences of the actions described. If the player, having described the extent of the search, fails to describe an action that would lead to the discovery of a particular clue, but the character possesses a skill that would have a bearing on the search (such as Spot Hidden or another skill that applies), then the GM may make the roll secretly. If the pertinent skill is high enough or the clue obvious enough, then the GM may rule that the clue is found without making a skill roll. It all depends on the circumstances. Recognizing which rules to use, alter, or ignore in a given situation is really the basis of GMing itself.

If, on the other hand, a character possesses a specialized skill that the player does not have, then it is acceptable to assume that under ordinary circumstances the skill will be automatically successful, or that under extraordinary circumstances a skill roll will be required. In neither case will a detailed description of the action on the part of the player be necessary. In other words, one needn't be a doctor in real life to play one on T.V. (or in a role-playing game).

Character skills should extend the capabilities of the player, not limit them. Similarly, skill rolls should be made to extend the plot, not kill it. Even if a crucial roll results in failure, it should merely delay or misdirect the investigators [Edit: or allow them to succeed, but at a great cost]; it should not prevent them from reaching their ultimate goal. Only their ability as players should have a bearing on that.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 1 March 2012.]

Detect Player Skill

The debate of player skill versus character skill, which extends to the dichotomy of class-based role-playing games versus skill-based role-playing games, is one that has its origin in a single game that encompassed both views: Dungeons & Dragons. Even within the covers of a single book, the original Advanced D&D Players Handbook, we find advice advocating player skill ("Observation and clever deduction, as well as proper caution, should negate a significant portion of traps.") alongside the suggestion that having "a dwarf for trap detection" goes "a long way toward reducing the hazard." Clearly, if player skill were sufficient, the inherent abilities of dwarves to "Detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stonework" would be irrelevant, and the same is true for the thief's function of "Finding/Removing Traps." Another example would be the rules for detecting secret doors. Is one supposed to describe the act of searching for a secret door, or is one supposed to roll 1d6 and abide by the result?

This apparent contradiction has led some gamers to assume that the existence of character skills that echo player skills means that a roll of the dice (or expenditure of a meta-game resource) should resolve all situations that arise, and that disallowing them or minimizing them somehow "punishes" less-skilled players. (This is an argument that I believe is popular amongst players of "story games.")

Outside the philosophical considerations of role-playing versus story-gaming, some gamers are simply content to roll-play rather than role-play out of sheer laziness or lack of interest. The "Spot Hidden" skill of Basic Role-Playing infamy is often subject to this mishandling. When the GM's question, "What do you do?" is answered with, "Roll my Spot Hidden skill," the game loses an entire dimension. (There is a flip side to the abuse of this skill, which I will discuss in another article.)

I consider it far more enjoyable to prevail by using my own abilities as a player than by using the arbitrary abilities of my character. Both as a GM and as a player, I derive much more pleasure from providing or listening to descriptions of a character's actions than from endless calls for dice rolls. That being said, I enjoy skill-based role-playing games like Fudge just as much, if not more, than class-based role-playing games. How, you may reasonably wonder, can that be?

Since a role-playing game is, above all else, a game (albeit an unconventional one), I think it is important to reward those who demonstrate actual skill at playing it. Ingenuity, preparedness, coolness under fire, and the ability to think quickly are all qualities that ought to translate into success for the player demonstrating them. The player's description of the character's actions ought to be the primary consideration of what transpires in the game. Detection rolls, as I see it, represent a second chance that the character, who may be an expert at such things, confers to the player. If, for example, the player fails to mention that his thief examines or prods (with a 10' pole, of course) the mosaic on the floor in front of him, the GM may secretly make the character's Find Traps roll. If successful, the GM mentions that the thief notices something suspicious about the mosaic in a trappy sort of way (if it's a trap) or says nothing (if it isn't). If unsuccessful, the GM says nothing regardless of whether it's a trap and waits to see of the thief walks across it. If the player had mentioned taking measures to inspect the mosaic cautiously, then no roll would have been necessary and the GM would have confirmed or refuted the player's suspicions. This basic idea can easily be applied to other situations: secret doors, hidden items, clues, etc. Effort and caution yield results; pertinent character skills yield a second chance.

This is not to say that a player's problem-solving skills are the only important aspects of role-playing. Tactical combat skills and actual role-playing skills (i.e. portraying one's character faithfully) are all sides of the triangle that represent good playing to me.

Remember that role-playing is like improvisational acting plus strategy. Playing a doctor doesn't mean a player must know how to diagnose or treat a patient in the real world. Playing a knight doesn't mean a player must know how to ride a horse. Playing a thief doesn't mean a player must know how to successfully pick someone's pocket. It does mean that a player should know when to render medical assistance to someone, which enemy to charge first, and whether it would be a good idea to pick this particular merchant's pockets in this particular time and place. Your character has skills in a game world. You, as a player, have skills in the real world to make decisions for your character in the game world. When your skills guide your character's skills toward success (however that may be defined for that character), then you are playing the game well.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 28 February 2012.]

PSA: Compromised Dead Link

In brief, my former Fudge site, Fudgery.net, was discontinued in 2014, but it is currently being used by scammers. Do not go to this site. If you go to the site accidentally, do not click on anything. When I saw it linked on someone's old fan site, I clicked on it out of curiosity and was taken to a page with a phony security warning that urged me to click on a button to scan for viruses. I did no such thing, of course, but I am concerned others might.

If you have a site or blog that links to Fudgery.net, please remove these links immediately. Nearly all of the content formerly located in Fudgery.net and Fudgerylog is now here in Creative Reckoning.

Take care and share the game with others.

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.