Quote from: Pat;1059644You seem confused. I didn't say named trait levels were a mechanic. I said the named trait levels were the reason behind the mechanic, and more important than the mechanic.

I still assert they are a naming convention. Naming convention doesn't make a game (though it is important to the game). So I still assert Fudge is a die mechanic. And ok, I guess I'll grant that the trait levels are a significant part of what Fudge is as presented. However, those trait levels as I recall are also optional, you can equally use numbered trait levels, and indeed, you have to convert them to a numeric scale in order to use the mechanic. And, in order for the game to work, you need to stick with the specific set of trait levels. I can't define my guy as "superb" and you define your guy as "supremo" and Robert define his guy as "top of the class" and us have any idea how each character relates to the other.

So ok, Fudge is a die mechanic, and a range of trait values that work together. What else makes up Fudge? How do we play? How do we create characters? That's all something for the person building a game to decide...

Most games I know have a defined (even if purely by word of mouth and maybe different from group to group) set of procedures of play in addition to any mechanics (which for things like ball games are the physical properties of the ball and play area and the way physics (gravity, force, thermodynamics, etc.) works).

Frank

Quote from: estar;1059658I used my original version that I wrote using VB.NET

Alex has a +1 OCV i.e. +1 to hit all other stats are the same.

----MW Ver 2---------
Alex Wins 7253
Brian Wins 2747
Average Rds 3.21735

Your idea of adding a fifth DF and ignoring the 0 and -1
----MW 5DF---------
Alex Wins 6336
Brian Wins 3664
Average Rds 4.39795

Alex has +1 to hit over Brian all other stats are the same. (Alex: +10 to hit, Brian +9 to hit, AC 18, DMG: 1d8, HP 45)

----D&D---------
Alex Wins 5970
Brian Wins 4030
Average Rds 15.41565

Alex has a 15 skill while Brian has a 14 skill all other stats are the same (DEF 10, HP 13, HT 12, DR 4, DMG: 1d6+2)

----GURPS---------
Alex Wins 5250
Brian Wins 4750
Average Rds 10.8475

Interesting, that definitely shows a real difference, and yea, I guess it's reasonable to conclude the Fudge die mechanic may be a mechanic that looks more cool than it plays out. Hmm, you show about 60-40 for +1 in D&D and maybe that was more what I saw. Still more significant that people might realize, but not so significant that a +1 starts to feel like you might as well use a dice-less mechanic where +1 is an automatic win. Of course some folks would like a system where a +1 makes things almost (but not absolutely) a forgone conclusion. But you really need to take care then about more than +1 (and the Fudge trait levels typically go from -2 to +2 or -3 to +3, where even a +2 is like in another world since +1 is amazingly better).

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1059661I still assert they are a naming convention.

Assert all you want. You can also assert that the game's name is Fudge (or FUDGE depending on the year), and that Good = +1. They're also tautologies that don't add anything to the conversation, or contrast your views with anything anyone else has said.

If you were around when Fudge was being created in rec.games.design, you'd know the 4dF mechanic is secondary. One of the key precepts of the game, as it was being created, was to create an intuitive tier of ranks, using real words that clearly convey relative value. The goal wasn't to just replace numbers with words, like in MSH, where there's no real semantic distinction between Incredible and Amazing, so they're just labels assigned to certain tiers that you have to memorize. No, Fudge was trying to create a hierarchy where you could pull random people off the street, have them order the words from good to bad, and there would be near universal consensus over the resultant rankings. That's why there are only seven levels, because that's about the limit for creating a clearly defined stepped tier, using English. If you start throwing in words like Superior or Excellent or Exceptional, then people would no longer be clear which tier was better or worse. Even the existing tiers have some limits -- Fair and Mediocre have some overlap, and so do Great and Superb. This concept has been pretty influential -- with certain expansions and alternate names, I've seen it in a lot of computer games, for instance. And that's what it is -- a good system-neutral way of conveying relative ability.

The mechanic came after, because O'Sullivan was looking for a bell curve to represent those broad degrees of ability, and none of the standard dice methods really fit. Which is also why the 4dF bell curve is steeper than, say, d6-d6 -- it's intended to at least somewhat model the distribution of skill, and if you break the entire of range of skill into only 7 tiers, a fight between someone in the 7th tier and someone in the 6th tier is not supposed to be close. Simplicity and representation are core ethos, not creating a dynamic finely-grained combat system. It's bad at that, because a +1 difference is pretty huge. But that's also not the intent; remember, this is the guy who also wrote Sherpa, which is a game designed to be played while hiking.

The mechanic isn't the core of the game, which I'd argue is a set of related ideas. Part of it is creating the human-grokkable and universal way to describe characters, as I discussed above. Another is to allow nearly any type of character, by getting rid of any pre-defined stats and thereby forcing them to be defined by the user (GM or even player). Another is to separate skills and stats, to allow the creation of characters like Groo (comically clumsy, but extraordinarily deadly with a sword), instead of fighters who always put a 13 or a 16 or an 18 in Strength (that was a clear reaction to GURPS). Another is create a game that's simple enough to play off-the-cuff. Another is create an open-source game that was freely available (though that was stuck in a peculiar place for a while). Another was to create a game in public, on the internet, incorporating the collaborative efforts of many posters, not just the primary author. There are others.

Quote from: estar;1059658I used my original version that I wrote using VB.NET

Alex has a +1 OCV i.e. +1 to hit all other stats are the same.

----MW Ver 2---------
Alex Wins 7253
Brian Wins 2747
Average Rds 3.21735

Your idea of adding a fifth DF and ignoring the 0 and -1
----MW 5DF---------
Alex Wins 6336
Brian Wins 3664
Average Rds 4.39795

Alex has +1 to hit over Brian all other stats are the same. (Alex: +10 to hit, Brian +9 to hit, AC 18, DMG: 1d8, HP 45)

----D&D---------
Alex Wins 5970
Brian Wins 4030
Average Rds 15.41565

Alex has a 15 skill while Brian has a 14 skill all other stats are the same (DEF 10, HP 13, HT 12, DR 4, DMG: 1d6+2)

----GURPS---------
Alex Wins 5250
Brian Wins 4750
Average Rds 10.8475

Thanks for that.

I think the combat rounds affect how big a bonus FEELS even if the win rates are closer. I think that is why a +1 in D&D doesn't feel like much even though it heavily swings the odds in your favor over the course of a combat.

So with (Wins - 5000)/Average Rounds you get

Ver2 - 700.27

5DF - 303.78

D&D - 62.92

GURPS - 23.05

Which are just comparative numbers.

Quote from: estar;10596304) It not granular enough. Because of the steepness of the 4dF bell curve getting +1 is effectively like jumping 3 levels in D&D at once.

I don't know how vanilla Fudge handles it, but in Fate it's expected that you're not just coming out swinging - Attack and Defend actions - and nothing else. If your combat skill is low, then you probably have a higher skill somewhere else that you can bring to bear in order to Create Advantage in order to bridge that gap in future rounds. Between that and calling on your character aspects, you have options to bridge(and even surpass) most gaps. It's a game that heavily rewards planning, set-up, and teamwork. Even spending a round or two not attacking if you have another skill that you can logically bring to bear on the situation in order to gain a significant advantage(or two if you roll particularly well) in future rounds.

I still have the Fudge book, and the thing I remember most about it was the disappointment at it being more of a toolkit than a complete system. I got it ages ago, and wasn't really into that kind of thing yet(I only kind of am now, but I prefer other systems for it). And I still don't get the complete decoupling of attributes and skills; if they don't interact, why have both in the first place? I dunno. Using the Groo example above, I much prefer the Fate approach. He'd have maybe a Wandering Warrior high concept aspect, a high Sword skill, and Walking Disaster Area as his Trouble aspect. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. (Yes, I realize there are other ways to build him, but that's just one way off the top of my head.)

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059700I don't know how vanilla Fudge handles it, but in Fate it's expected that you're not just coming out swinging - Attack and Defend actions - and nothing else. If your combat skill is low, then you probably have a higher skill somewhere else that you can bring to bear in order to Create Advantage in order to bridge that gap in future rounds.

The problem isn't procedure, it is the 4DF roll itself. Fate just makes it worse by giving a +2 bonus for creating an advantage.

Normally without any modifier you have a 61% chance of rolling a +0 or higher with Fudge Dice.
Add the +2 it jumps to 93% chance of rolling a +0 or higher.

Regardless of the skill or produce a +2 difference to what you need to roll (either an opposed roll or a target) is a near certain success.

Just look at it on AnyDice and click on At Least and see how the odds shift.

Fate got its own thing going with the Fate Point Economy, Aspects, etc. So that disparity is not a big deal.

However with Fudge and trying to use it as a traditional RPG (like GURPS, its intellectual progenitor), Then it becomes a real problem. A +1 skill in GURPS is an improvement but it is not the gamechanger as +1 in Fudge. +2 well there is no comparison. A +1 different with Fudge Dice is the same difference (+30%) between a 1st level fighter in D&D and a 5th level Fighter (assuming +1 to hit per level). A +2 bonus is the same difference (+60%) between a 1st level fighter and a 13th level fighter.

Interesting thing is that if one uses a d6-d6 it much better. Only a 14% increase in success with a +1. (From 58% to 72%).

Why does any of this matter? Because the rate of progression is an important part of a feel of a RPG. I was shooting for something like progressed like GURPS skills and was unable to get that with Fudge Dice. I was able to get that with how AGE does things which uses 3d6 but with a much more minimalist design.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059700if they don't interact, why have both in the first place? I dunno. Using the Groo example above, I much prefer the Fate approach. He'd have maybe a Wandering Warrior high concept aspect, a high Sword skill, and Walking Disaster Area as his Trouble aspect. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. (Yes, I realize there are other ways to build him, but that's just one way off the top of my head.)

In my rules they do interact, skill rolls are 4dF + attribute + skill.  Fudge can work multiple ways.

Quote from: Pat;1059669Assert all you want. You can also assert that the game's name is Fudge (or FUDGE depending on the year), and that Good = +1. They're also tautologies that don't add anything to the conversation, or contrast your views with anything anyone else has said.

If you were around when Fudge was being created in rec.games.design, you'd know the 4dF mechanic is secondary. One of the key precepts of the game, as it was being created, was to create an intuitive tier of ranks, using real words that clearly convey relative value. The goal wasn't to just replace numbers with words, like in MSH, where there's no real semantic distinction between Incredible and Amazing, so they're just labels assigned to certain tiers that you have to memorize. No, Fudge was trying to create a hierarchy where you could pull random people off the street, have them order the words from good to bad, and there would be near universal consensus over the resultant rankings. That's why there are only seven levels, because that's about the limit for creating a clearly defined stepped tier, using English. If you start throwing in words like Superior or Excellent or Exceptional, then people would no longer be clear which tier was better or worse. Even the existing tiers have some limits -- Fair and Mediocre have some overlap, and so do Great and Superb. This concept has been pretty influential -- with certain expansions and alternate names, I've seen it in a lot of computer games, for instance. And that's what it is -- a good system-neutral way of conveying relative ability.

The mechanic came after, because O'Sullivan was looking for a bell curve to represent those broad degrees of ability, and none of the standard dice methods really fit. Which is also why the 4dF bell curve is steeper than, say, d6-d6 -- it's intended to at least somewhat model the distribution of skill, and if you break the entire of range of skill into only 7 tiers, a fight between someone in the 7th tier and someone in the 6th tier is not supposed to be close. Simplicity and representation are core ethos, not creating a dynamic finely-grained combat system. It's bad at that, because a +1 difference is pretty huge. But that's also not the intent; remember, this is the guy who also wrote Sherpa, which is a game designed to be played while hiking.

The mechanic isn't the core of the game, which I'd argue is a set of related ideas. Part of it is creating the human-grokkable and universal way to describe characters, as I discussed above. Another is to allow nearly any type of character, by getting rid of any pre-defined stats and thereby forcing them to be defined by the user (GM or even player). Another is to separate skills and stats, to allow the creation of characters like Groo (comically clumsy, but extraordinarily deadly with a sword), instead of fighters who always put a 13 or a 16 or an 18 in Strength (that was a clear reaction to GURPS). Another is create a game that's simple enough to play off-the-cuff. Another is create an open-source game that was freely available (though that was stuck in a peculiar place for a while). Another was to create a game in public, on the internet, incorporating the collaborative efforts of many posters, not just the primary author. There are others.

I am aware of some of the history of Fudge. What you describe is cool and all, but the use of user defined descriptors (which has advantages and disadvantages) still doesn't define game procedures (how to play), it just defines game stats (so yes, at some level that is a mechanic). One of my biggest issues with Fudge is it really doesn't define the game procedures. Further, I've seen problems with user defined descriptors, especially when used with any kind of point build system or any attempt to "balance" different characters. If my character has superb software engineer and your character has superb C++, does that mean my character can not only do C++ just as good as you, but can do any other programming language also? How do you balance the scope of user defined descriptors? Now I know one way Fudge can be played is the GM defines the set of descriptors used for a particular game, and that's a big part of where the toolkit perception of Fudge comes in.

Frank

Quote from: estar;1059742The problem isn't procedure, it is the 4DF roll itself. Fate just makes it worse by giving a +2 bonus for creating an advantage.

Normally without any modifier you have a 61% chance of rolling a +0 or higher with Fudge Dice.
Add the +2 it jumps to 93% chance of rolling a +0 or higher.

Regardless of the skill or produce a +2 difference to what you need to roll (either an opposed roll or a target) is a near certain success.

Just look at it on AnyDice and click on At Least and see how the odds shift.

Fate got its own thing going with the Fate Point Economy, Aspects, etc. So that disparity is not a big deal.

However with Fudge and trying to use it as a traditional RPG (like GURPS, its intellectual progenitor), Then it becomes a real problem. A +1 skill in GURPS is an improvement but it is not the gamechanger as +1 in Fudge. +2 well there is no comparison. A +1 different with Fudge Dice is the same difference (+30%) between a 1st level fighter in D&D and a 5th level Fighter (assuming +1 to hit per level). A +2 bonus is the same difference (+60%) between a 1st level fighter and a 13th level fighter.

Interesting thing is that if one uses a d6-d6 it much better. Only a 14% increase in success with a +1. (From 58% to 72%).

Why does any of this matter? Because the rate of progression is an important part of a feel of a RPG. I was shooting for something like progressed like GURPS skills and was unable to get that with Fudge Dice. I was able to get that with how AGE does things which uses 3d6 but with a much more minimalist design.

In my rules they do interact, skill rolls are 4dF + attribute + skill.  Fudge can work multiple ways.

All sorts of great points. Note that d6-d6 is statistically the same as 2d6 which Traveller uses, though a +1 is still pretty significant, but at least not so overwhelming that +2 or +3 aren't meaningful distinctions (and with Traveller skills, having more than +3 is so unusual that I don't mind if the system starts to break - though the combat system has enough negative modifiers that a +6 skill will still have a meaningful distinction even if it means that someone with Auto-Pistol-6 actually has a decent shot at long range (-6) or against battle dress (-5) and even combined, if he has Dex 10+ (+1 advantageous dexterity DM) he only needs a 10+ to hit battle dress at medium range (and at short range with a +2 DM, he only needs a 4+ against battle dress...).

So yea, I see your point, 4dF quickly breaks. If the intent really is that being one step better than someone else really is a dramatic difference, but the lesser guy still has some chance, then the mechanic is workable, though one wonders if there are simpler ways than requiring multiple specialty dice.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1059748I am aware of some of the history of Fudge. What you describe is cool and all, but the use of user defined descriptors (which has advantages and disadvantages) still doesn't define game procedures (how to play), it just defines game stats (so yes, at some level that is a mechanic). One of my biggest issues with Fudge is it really doesn't define the game procedures. Further, I've seen problems with user defined descriptors, especially when used with any kind of point build system or any attempt to "balance" different characters. If my character has superb software engineer and your character has superb C++, does that mean my character can not only do C++ just as good as you, but can do any other programming language also? How do you balance the scope of user defined descriptors? Now I know one way Fudge can be played is the GM defines the set of descriptors used for a particular game, and that's a big part of where the toolkit perception of Fudge comes in.

You initially said "I have a hard time seeing Fudge as much more than a dice mechanic", and I pointed out there's more to the the game than the dice mechanic, and gave examples. But your replies have all been along the lines of "that's a naming convention not a mechanic". Do you see why that's confusing? I never made any claims about what is and what is not a mechanic. You've either been consistently reading something into my posts that isn't there, or you're trying to make a separate point but you left out some important connective tissue that links what I said with what you're trying to say.

On the toolkit aspect, it's not a perception. Fudge can be run out of the box, but it requires someone (GM or player) to define the traits, and their scope. Whether it works for you depends on what type of game you want to play, and it sounds like it's not your thing. But  that's a design feature, not a flaw, because it does what it's intended to do. In the case of your C++ expert vs. a general software engineer, a reasonable GM will either make sure traits don't subsume each other like that,  or will give the C++ expert specialized information and results in their area of expertise. Because skills are inherently packages, and "superb" describes their skill in the whole package, not in all the individual components. The software engineer might be in the top tier when it comes to combining all aspects of development like coding, testing, debugging, picking the best tools for the job, general concepts like algorithms, and even secondary issues like GDPR compliance. But that doesn't mean they're superb at all subsidiary aspects. Someone who is superb at software engineering in general might not know C++ at all, while a specialist in that language probably knows a hell of lot more about pointers and memory allocation.

Fudge doesn't worry about formalizing those definitions, instead treating them as emergent property of the game. A reasonable GM can troubleshoot likely problems during character creation, and then is responsible for making judgment calls during play. The first time a skill is tested the results will be pretty arbitrary from the standpoint of the players, but it sets a pattern. So after a few skill tests, players can be fairly confident about what their traits cover and don't cover. It's the difference between a written law and a precedent, to make an analogy to the legal world. Or in the RPG world, it's comparable to the "rulings not rules" of OD&D vs. the rules as written of v.3.5.

I personally think the current Fudge book is meant to teach you how to build a system. It's not a toolkit or a system by itself.

So sure you can play "rulings not rules". But Fudge also works as "rulings can become rules" where not only the story but the system itself is emergent as the game goes on.

Most of the book offers ways to think about RPG elements and then provides some worked examples. Before I got through the 320 page tome, I already had dozens of house-rule ideas.

I'm still curious as to why this method didn't take off. I guess it does require a Fudge GM to be both a good GM and a good Rules Developer for a game to really click with their players. It also requires players that are also willing to do a bit of rules development themselves to work out a character concept.

Quote from: estar;1059742The problem isn't procedure, it is the 4DF roll itself. Fate just makes it worse by giving a +2 bonus for creating an advantage. . . .

I'm not going to quote everything, but . . . I just don't see this as a problem at all. Good has a 30% better chance than Fair, and Great has a 60% better chance than Fair, using your numbers. And that seems about right. In addition to the Fate Point economy, other things like how milestones(basically the XP/level alternative) are handled keeps the numbers from getting out of control. A +1 means more than in D&D, but you also get that +1 less frequently than in D&D. And then only for 1 skill at a time instead of across the board, plus whatever new class features your level up unlocks.

And I kind of love the +2 from Create Advantage or tagging Aspects. It really makes planning and teamwork feel important and powerful. I remember skill assists in 3.x D&D, how one character would use up their entire attempt at something in order to provide a possible +2(10%) to another player's roll. Unless one or both characters were so low skilled that they needed an assist to have any chance at all, the math actually encouraged you to just make separate attempts in a lot of cases. Maybe a 60% difference is a lot(I think it depends on the action; some things are easier to assist on than others), but I find a 10% improvement from an assist to be way too low in most cases. If you want something more subdued, though, you could just change invokes to +1 across the board. I think 30% could be a happy medium(the default is geared more towards pulp style characters, after all). Fate is meant to be easily tailored like that.

And your rounds breakdown illustrates one of the things I really love. You have 3 to 5 rounds in Fudge if the skill difference is +1(under certain assumptions meant as a control) as opposed to 10 to 15 rounds in GURPS or D&D. The greater difference in Fudge illustrates that a single point difference is supposed to be significant, placing them on a completely different tier. And the fact that combats can be resolved in 1/2 to 1/3 of the number of rounds required in GURPS or D&D in such cases, to me, is a feature and not a bug. I'm not entirely sure how this translates to Fate, though, due to its use of Conditions instead of regular Hit Points. The way you gain and heal Conditions makes me think that a Fate game is going to have a significantly different ebb and flow to a game using traditional HP.

Invocations of aspects aren't really meant to model "this is slightly easier/tougher because...".  That kind of thing is better left to passive opposition.

Invocations are really more of like the times in a movie or TV show where it looks like someone is going to fail, but then something happens to change the outcome.

They're a terrible mechanic for "this is slightly easier/harder".  Combined with the fact you can only use them a few times, it just doesn't make sense.  They're supposed to be swingy, because they really handle that kind of reversal thing that you see in media.

Quote from: EstarA +1 skill in GURPS is an improvement but it is not the gamechanger as +1 in Fudge.

True. I came the same conclusion.

Quote from: RhedynMy idea was to add "Advantage"/"Disadvantage" die to a roll. So if you have an advantage to a roll, you would roll an extra 1dF and if the result is positive, you add that to your results, you ignore other results. And the opposite for a "Disadvantage".

Same here. Someday I want to make green bonus dice (n,n,n,n,+,+) and red penalty dice (n,n,n,n,-,-). I actually made my own Fudge dice, with blank cubes and paint. Unfortunately before I had this idea.

Edit: I gave up on Fudge as an RPG, but I use the 4dF in just about every game, no matter what the system. Example: You meet an NPC. 4- means a poor first impression; 4+ means a positive one. Or "What's the weather like?" 4- is a storm; 4+ is a sunny day. Stuff like that.

Quote from: ffilz;1059748I am aware of some of the history of Fudge. What you describe is cool and all, but the use of user defined descriptors (which has advantages and disadvantages) still doesn't define game procedures (how to play)...

For me the problem wasn't the lack of game procedures, it was the opposite: Option-itis. Character creation can be A, or B, or C. Combat can be D, E, or F. Damage can be L, M, or O.

My favorite iteration of Fudge was called FAST, by a guy named Grubman over on TBP. He converted all of the words to numbers (a 1 to 8 scale), created defined atts and skills, weapon damages, and a short DIY magic section. I liked real math (4-1 or 3+2) better than "Fudge math" (Good +2 or Excellent -3.) But even that couldn't save it for me, due to the granularity.

Quote from: robiswrong;1059788Invocations of aspects aren't really meant to model "this is slightly easier/tougher because...".  That kind of thing is better left to passive opposition.

Invocations are really more of like the times in a movie or TV show where it looks like someone is going to fail, but then something happens to change the outcome.

They're a terrible mechanic for "this is slightly easier/harder".  Combined with the fact you can only use them a few times, it just doesn't make sense.  They're supposed to be swingy, because they really handle that kind of reversal thing that you see in media.

Good points. Of course, at this point it's obvious that I personally really like that a +1 is a significant bump instead of the 5% increase it would be in D&D. I can understand why there's a need for more granularity in some games, but I don't think it's necessary(or even desirable) for that to be the case in all games.

Quote from: Aglondir;1059824Same here. Someday I want to make green bonus dice (n,n,n,n,+,+) and red penalty dice (n,n,n,n,-,-). I actually made my own Fudge dice, with blank cubes and paint. Unfortunately before I had this idea.

For simplicity, if I wanted a way to model smaller bonuses - things that make sense, but which aren't big enough to justify putting another aspect on the board - I'd probably just handle advantage/disadvantage in a manner similar to Mongoose Traveller 2e. Advantage would be 5dF, drop lowest. And disadvantage would be 5dF, drop highest. I like that the potential range remains the same while your results get weighted a bit to one side or the other as appropriate.