The Princess Bride: A Literal Fudge Gift

Lo and behold! We celebrated a belated Christmas at my father-in-law's house this month, and my wife's brother and sister-in-law gave me this as a gift! I can now strike off "Purchase [or otherwise acquire] a copy of The Princess Bride Roleplaying Game (deluxe edition)" from my nonbinding New Year's resolutions! Everyone expressed great interest in at as well as a desire to play it, so I think I had better reacquaint myself with the source material so I can present it to best effect. I am very grateful for this gift, and I look forward to reading it, playing it, and sharing my discoveries and experiences here in Creative Reckoning.

Happy Various Belated Holidays!

Note: The Princess Bride Roleplaying Game by Steffan O'Sullivan is a Fudge-based role-playing game published by Toy Vault.

Let the Dice Fall Where They May

[The following article is a predecessor to "It Matters Who Rolls."]

Dice in any game contribute suspense. Your strategy may appear flawless, but dice represent the fickle finger of Fate that tends to poke you in the eye just when victory is in sight. On the other hand, it can also point the way to safety just when you think all hope is lost. In a role-playing game, dice are the element of chance that is the great equalizer between the GM and the players. For the GM, dice are both a limitation and a liberation. The GM already bears the burden of describing a world and all the inhabitants the players encounter. When the dice are rolled, however, there is no such burden except to describe the results. Here is where the GM gets to participate like a player, where events in the world the GM created can be influenced by an external neutral force. For those GMs who rarely get the opportunity to be players, this is where they, too, can watch events unfold from a non-omniscient point of view.

In order for this dynamic to work, it is necessary for the dice to be rolled in the open. That is to say, the dice ought to be rolled in full view of the players and the GM. Certain kinds of rolls would still be made secretly by the GM, such as a percentage chance of a certain event or encounter happening or when a player character attempts a skill for which success is not readily discernible (e.g. searching for a secret door or detecting a trap), but rolls that represent a contest between characters or a character and the environment should be visible to all participants in the situation.

One problem this alleviates is distrust by the players. If a player can see the GM's roll, he or she knows that the GM is not fudging rolls for the players' benefit or detriment. Although some GMs are suspected of fudging rolls in favor of their NPCs or monsters, I suspect many more are actually guilty of fudging rolls in favor of the players because they do not wish to be too harsh. I suspect this because I was one of those GMs in my early days in the hobby. Mollycoddling players does them no good in the long run. You may think you are helping them, but in actuality you deprive them of the true taste of victory when they succeed if you withhold the bitterness of defeat when they fail. You are also obstructing their growth as gamers.

Any given dice-rolling tradition is probably as old as any other. Some GMs roll in the open; some roll in secret; some let the players roll, but never tell them the target number; some even roll for the players, too. Different groups have different needs. My needs, both as a GM and a player, require that I get to roll dice and let them fall where they may.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 27 December 2011.]

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.

Reviewing Reviews

There is a debate amongst some in the hobby—if not the industry—whether a review of a role-playing game is legitimate if the reviewer did not first play or run the game. The crux of the problem is this: Is it the game or the product that is being reviewed? Take chess for instance. One could review the rules of the game and the experience it produces as an activity, or one could review the physical components of the game such as the board and the pieces. Most role-playing game reviewers rely heavily on the latter because there is the added complexity that no two groups of gamers play exactly the same way. When they do address the rules (as opposed to the details of a rule book such as font, binding, type of paper, or quality/quantity of illustrations), they typically concentrate on how they think they will help or hinder the gameplay. Without experiencing the effect of the rules firsthand, they can only theorize whether a given rule is good or even necessary. And this will vary from gaming group to gaming group. One group might respond favorably to a game in which each player controls multiple characters whereas another might find it a nuissance. One group might consider an initiative rule to be novel and entertaining whereas another group might find it too time-consuming. All reviews are subjective. It is in their nature. I would merely suggest that reviewers draw a distinct line between a review of a role-playing game as a product versus a review of the same as an experience, because both are valid. Sometimes a rule looks better on paper than in practice, and sometimes the rules as written work better than you could have imagined. Too often I have made assumptions about a rule only to be proven mistaken at the game table. The proof is in the actual play. You can a) review the game itself, b) review just the physical product, or c) review the product and speculate about how it might work at the table. Just be clear about your approach.

[This article has been cross-posted here in Applied Phantasticality.]

Some Nonbinding Resolutions for the Year 2024

I have heard no news regarding Fudge and the Open Game Licence controversy since January 2023, and this makes me hesitent to make predictions about the game or, indeed, this blog. So, instead, I will fudge some nonbinding personal resolutions for the New Year. In no particular order, they are as follows:

• Purchase a copy of The Deryni Adventure Game (as seen here).
• Purchase a copy of The Eleven Kingdoms: Poster Map of the Deryni World (as seen here).
• Purchase a copy of The Princess Bride Roleplaying Game (deluxe edition).
• Experiment with converting some other role-playing games to Fudge (mainly those that have interesting ideas, but terrible rules).
• Playtest some of my own Fudge builds and make any necessary revisions.
• Post some art on the blog?
• Remind myself to stop worrying and just fudge it.

Peace!

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.]

Fudge Thought of the Day 2023-07-06

The recent Great Controversy of our hobby regarding the antics of Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast and the Open Game License has led many game publishers to reconsider their reliance on the OGL and explore other options including the Open RPG Creative License (awkwardly dubbed "ORC"), Creative Commons licenses, and licenses unique to their companies. Fudge, of course, shifted from the Fudge Legal Notice to the OGL years ago, and now we await a decision as to its future from its official publisher, Grey Ghost Press.

I have been distrustful of the OGL from the beginning. I have never felt comfortable granting power over my work to a company that had nothing to do with the game system for which I create content, and I have certainly never condoned giving any company the illusion of ownership of information (such as game mechanics) that cannot be copyrighted.

My preference—for Fudge and any role-playing game for which I desire to create content—is for either a Creative Commons license or a license created by the individual publisher (such as the free compatibility license for Awfully Cheerful Engine!). This would remove much of the concern I sometimes have about sharing material and give me more incentive to write it. Most creators are undercompensated for their efforts. Let's do something to help, rather than hinder, their ability to contribute to the hobby and the community.

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.