Picturing a More Approachable Rule Book

Fudge is excellent for experienced GMs teaching novice players, but many players encounter a rule book before gaming with an expert, so an important question to consider is this: What is the best way to present the rules to a beginner? And by "beginner" I mean someone new to Fudge or even role-playing itself (because Fudge can be something of a mystery even to experienced gamers). Fudge in a Nutshell is a good place to start, but I'm looking for something a little more organic, something that takes the reader on a (brief) journey. The ideal primer for the new Fudge player, or even a GM, might be a comic book, or perhaps a comic zine. It would have the flow of a good comic, emphasize the main points, illustrate useful examples, and demonstrate the dynamism of the game in a visually memorable way. And it would be succinct.

Another game has done this and quite well, albeit for a single genre: Supercrew (see RPG Geek entry). Something along similar lines might be useful in making Fudge more approachable, which I think should be of interest to anyone who loves the game.

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.

Revivify Your Role-Playing Games with Fudge

If, like me, you have a library of role-playing games that you know you will never play because they are in some way unplayable, but which you are keeping because they have value as reference material or they have a few interesting rules you might want to use in another game or the nostalgia is just too strong to let you part with them, then try this: Just throw out the ordinary rules (but keep the one or two interesting innovations), throw out the stat blocks, convert only what you need to Fudge terms (don't worry about the science of it—this is a game, so "ballpark" it, i.e. fudge it), and play the damned game with Fudge rules. If you ever have a question about which option to use, choose the subjective method by default. You can always complicate it later if that's your bliss. If the game has any redeeming value at all, dust it off and run it with Fudge and make it justify the space it occupies on your bookcase. Games are meant to played and Fudge is honestly the best hope some games have of ever fulfilling their purpose. Just fudge it already.

The Might of Gods Cannot Be Quantified by Mortals

As much as I prize my mint condition copy of Deities & Demigods (with the Cthulhu and Melnibonéan Mythos intact), and as much as I enjoy the illustrations, I find its gaming content mostly useless. I do not endorse the treatment of gods as mere monsters (unless it is a monster being worshipped as a god), nor do I approve of describing them with statblocks, especially if they purport to quantify their attributes on the same scale as player characters. No god in any world of mine will deign to be compared to mortals. Any mortals in my campaigns will either be unaware that they have encountered a god (for it is said they walk amongst us in disguise when it suits them) or they will be awestruck. Watch Jason and the Argonauts (1963) for a lesson in how to handle such encounters.

Nonetheless, it is interesting and informative to know how the attributes of gods compare with one another on their own scale without tempting players to see them as potential experience point awards. To this end, I recommend describing their attributes in Fudge terms. Fudge uses adjectives instead of hard numbers to compare traits (attributes, skills, and sometimes powers). Traditionally, it uses the following progression:

Superb
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible

Scale is used with Mass, Strength, and Speed to further differentiate beings. A pixie, for instance, is on an entirely different scale than a human being, but their attributes would still range from Terrible to Superb in comparison to one another. By that same logic, gods within a pantheon may vary in strength, wisdom, charisma, etc., but the weakest of them will still be capable of crushing the strongest mortal like an ant.

To illustrate the possibilities, here are four Greek gods and their basic attributes (all of which are Scale: Divine).

Athena

Strength: Fair
Intelligence: Superb
Wisdom: Superb
Dexterity: Good
Constitution: Good
Charisma: Superb

Aphrodite

Strength: Mediocre
Intelligence: Fair
Wisdom: Mediocre
Dexterity: Good
Constitution: Good
Charisma: Superb

Ares

Strength: Great
Intelligence: Mediocre
Wisdom: Poor
Dexterity: Great
Constitution: Great
Charisma: Great

Hephaestus

Strength: Superb
Intelligence: Superb
Wisdom: Good
Dexterity: Great (manual dexterity); Terrible (agility)
Constitution: Good
Charisma: Poor

Role-playing the interaction of gods with one another can be accomplished by using the basic Fudge rules, which can be obtained for free here (at my own Fudge site) or at FudgeRPG.com.

[This article was previously posted here in Applied Phantasticality on 30 September 2013.]

Scale Chart Issues

Recently, I noticed that Blogger has been distorting the tables for my Mass Scale Chart and my Strength Scale Chart. This is disappointing. I might convert the charts to documents and store them on Dropbox instead of leaving them at the mercy of Blogger's whims.

I don't really pay much heed to numerical Scale these days, as I have been leaning more into subjective Fudge. The difficulty of trying to ascertain the Scale of certain animals whose range of sizes can vary wildly has also been challenging to the point that I am not convinced its usefulness outweighs the effort. I am more of the opinion that Scale ought to be descriptive. It keeps things flexible and tangible. So, if the Scale charts move or disappear entirely, those are my reasons.

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.

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