TheRPGSite

By dead, I mean people not playing it. And then my next question is why you think it is dead?

Maybe since it's a rules light system builder it just doesn't have much conversations about it anymore but even the forums and social media sites I have found dedicated to Fudge do not have posts for at least a couple of years.

I've noticed that fans of rules heavier games like GURPS are still pretty active on forums (more so than slightly more numerous fans of lighter systems like Savage Worlds where both of them still have tons of new stuff coming out).

Sure Fate is still kicking around, but it is not really Fudge anymore.

Only mostly dead. :)

That's actually appropriate--the official FUDGE-powered Princess Bride RPG is coming out later this year, and Grey Ghost is making noise about a 25th Anniversary edition as well.

But yeah, a lot of the FUDGE audience got seduced by Fate.

Since there is not all that much to highly subjective minimalist system, they are probably more vulnerable to the hype cycle than something mechanically robust. For instance, Knave is the current OSR mini-system du jour, while offering pretty much the same thing as The Black Hack a little time ago, which was offering pretty much the same as S&W Light before (and so on). The same with more narrative games.

Quote from: Melan;1059612Since there is not all that much to highly subjective minimalist system, they are probably more vulnerable to the hype cycle than something mechanically robust. For instance, Knave is the current OSR mini-system du jour, while offering pretty much the same thing as The Black Hack a little time ago, which was offering pretty much the same as S&W Light before (and so on). The same with more narrative games.

Yea, I have a hard time seeing Fudge as much more than a dice mechanic with some "here's some neat ways you can use the mechanic."

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1059617Yea, I have a hard time seeing Fudge as much more than a dice mechanic with some "here's some neat ways you can use the mechanic."

Using real world terms to describe the attribute levels are more important than the dFs, and were the reason for the mechanic.

Quote from: Melan;1059612The same with more narrative games.

Actually Fudge is not a narrative game. There mention of Fudge points but they are about important as luck points or better yet Inspiration in D&D 5e. Part of the system but not its focus in the way Fate Points are.

Quote from: Pat;1059627Using real world terms to describe the attribute levels are more important than the dFs, and were the reason for the mechanic.

That's a naming convention not a mechanic.

There are several issues with Fudge

1) It is a toolkit
2) Until Spirit of the Century there wasn't a "sexy" RPG that made use of it. Grey Ghost tried but Evil Hat knew how to market.
3) It had a weird 3PP license until the early 2000s.
4) 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.

It a good idea. I took my own stab at a Fudge RPG (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip) and it worked. But #4 really became obvious after a few session and I abandoned the attempt.

Right now if I was to roll my own, I would do something similar to the AGE System. Attributes and skill are modifiers to a 3d6 roll high task system.

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.

My big issue with this was circumstance and tactical situations, less so "Difference between Good and Gooder Swordsman".

My 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".

It's an average value of +.33, so it is less devastating to fight at a disadvantage (like the fighting multiple opponents rules).

Quote from: estar;1059630There are several issues with Fudge

1) It is a toolkit
2) Until Spirit of the Century there wasn't a "sexy" RPG that made use of it. Grey Ghost tried but Evil Hat knew how to market.
3) It had a weird 3PP license until the early 2000s.
4) 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.

It a good idea. I took my own stab at a Fudge RPG (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip) and it worked. But #4 really became obvious after a few session and I abandoned the attempt.

Right now if I was to roll my own, I would do something similar to the AGE System. Attributes and skill are modifiers to a 3d6 roll high task system.

I'd love to see some good statistical analysis of various die roll systems and combat systems. Back in grad school, the author of Cold Iron (the home brew system several of us used) wrote a nice little monte carlo battle simulator. You could input a few strategy parameters, but otherwise, it took two combatants (with all their stats, bufffs, magic swords, and whatnot) and had them slug it out to see how many times each won. A +1 in that system turned out to swing the odds over a whole combat from 50-50 to something like 70-30 if I remember. I then took the same idea to AD&D and found similar results, maybe more like 65-35 but still...

A lot of it depends on what constitutes a success and how many rolls it takes to resolve a conflict. Note that an 11+ on D20 with a +1 swings from 50-50 to 65-45 for a single roll and when you compound that, it quickly swings in favor of the +1. Now of course the more rolls to resolve a conflict gives more time to try different strategies (and thus tends to be in favor of the PCs in some situations). Of course sometimes more rolls works against the PCs (the good old make tracking or climbing rolls until you fail).

And just for the record, I did give Fudge a try. I even had one really fun session (when I ran Another Fine Mess, which still sits on my bookshelf). I also had one horrible session where the lack of explicit procedures left me not getting to react to things because the other players and the GM cruised on before I had any say, and then the last hour or more we watched the GM's pet player role play the solution to the adventure in the kitchen while the rest of us languished in a trap or something, and that was the end of Fudge for me. It was clear (even from playing Another Fine Mess) that without actual procedural rules, the game was a massive instance of Mother May I, with the descriptive stats just adding to that. Those experiences really started to wake me up to the danger of GM rulings falling into Mother May I. I'm not sure that I always avoid that, but it helps to see just how bad that can get and to check myself.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1059629That's a naming convention not a mechanic.

You 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.

Fudge is REALLY good for convention one shots. You can teach the system to newbs with no issue and there's a conversion for using real D6 so you don't need their funky dice. I've used it for mini-campaigns, but what it does best is rules light 1-3 session games. I highly recommend it for what it does. I especially recommend it for genre IP stuff, like Star Trek, Marvel, Star Wars or Matrix. I've done all of those where you are cool with broad brush strokes and theater of the mind.

Quote from: ffilz;1059639I'd love to see some good statistical analysis of various die roll systems and combat systems.

http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/

I simulated two individual standing toe to toe trading blows.

If I give Alex a +1 OCV i.e. +1 to hit The result go from 50-50 to

Alex Wins 7350
Brian Wins 2650
Average Rds 3.2324
Total Initial Exchange Kills 1337
Total Second Exchange Kills 932

Mucking around with the other numbers just changes the Average Rds

I wrote this to bake in the magic numbers. That when I discover it hopeless. Although recently I found advantage disadvantage give a smooth grade.

Quote from: estar;1059648http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/

I simulated two individual standing toe to toe trading blows.

If I give Alex a +1 OCV i.e. +1 to hit The result go from 50-50 to

Alex Wins 7350
Brian Wins 2650
Average Rds 3.2324
Total Initial Exchange Kills 1337
Total Second Exchange Kills 932

Mucking around with the other numbers just changes the Average Rds

I wrote this to bake in the magic numbers. That when I discover it hopeless. Although recently I found advantage disadvantage give a smooth grade.

What is the number if instead of +1 OCV, Alex rolls an additional 1dF and adds +1 if the result is a  "+" and ignores other results on that die?

I kind of want to know how my house-rule effects the odds.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1059651What is the number if instead of +1 OCV, Alex rolls an additional 1dF and adds +1 if the result is a  "+" and ignores other results on that die?

I kind of want to know how my house-rule effects the odds.

I 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

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 (https://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/s2.html), 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 (https://anydice.com/program/11cea) 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 (https://anydice.com/program/11ceb) 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 (https://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/s2.html), 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 (https://anydice.com/program/11cea) 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 (https://anydice.com/program/11ceb) 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.

For me the adjectives instead of numbers are just aggravating, I always get mediocre, average and fair mixed up so I just convert them to numbers.

The dice mechanic is fine and all but nothing special.

What I like about it is that it boils down attributes, skills and levels into simple abilites. The pyramid system set-up is nice as well for chargen, but is that FATE or FUDGE? I forget.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1059647Fudge is REALLY good for convention one shots. You can teach the system to newbs with no issue and there's a conversion for using real D6 so you don't need their funky dice. I've used it for mini-campaigns, but what it does best is rules light 1-3 session games. I highly recommend it for what it does. I especially recommend it for genre IP stuff, like Star Trek, Marvel, Star Wars or Matrix. I've done all of those where you are cool with broad brush strokes and theater of the mind.

Yeah, I played in a PBEM 'Space: Above & Beyond' FUDGE game back in the '90s, and it worked really well for that.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059846Advantage 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.

One thing I've been doing is reworking how damage works. I'm having Scale+Damage Resistance Attribute be something you roll when you are damage and you only use that result if it is positive. Every time you negate damage you gain a  disadvantage dice until you receive a wound or take a 15 minute short rest.

I've found a lot of players do not like "plinking" with ineffective attacks that hit, so this mechanic then allows for them to do something every time they hit while also giving a method to actually wound creatures of a massive scale without equally massive bonuses.

Quote from: Aglondir;1059826For 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.

Sure there were character creation, combat, and damage options, but the game (at least the Fudge book I had) lacked the procedures that tie those together and much of any sort of "how to play". Those options of course emphasize the toolkit nature of Fudge. I suspect it works well for one shots because the one shot is specific enough to create characters with the loose descriptors and have them work ok. I'm sure the procedures the GM uses are derived from whatever gaming they did before they got into Fudge. But could someone who had never played an RPG make any sense out of the Fudge book? Just browsing through Another Fine Mess it looks like it does have a reasonable set of procedures. I suspect it might be a bit difficult for someone not familiar with RPGs to use, but there's enough in there they could probably work it out. But that's a one shot.

Frank

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059785I'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.

Then you are happy with a RPG that jumps multiple levels at onces for the next step in experience. It neither good or bad, but it is the consquence of the mechanic. One step of improvement would the equivalent of jumping from 1st level in combat ability to 5th level in combat experience in D&D. (or spell casting, or skill use however you want to slice it).

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059785And 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.

It more than that, it about situational modifiers as well. And it not "just one skill at a time" because Fate skills are far more broad than what found in 3.X D&D or GURPS.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059785And I kind of love the +2 from Create Advantage or tagging Aspects. It really makes planning and teamwork feel important and powerful.

Maybe or it may mean that you are only going to get the +2 bonus if what happening is worth that much of a difference. Otherwise the referee will be well in their rights to disallow the use of create advantage. In Fate Core it not that you get to use Create Advantage you have to use in a way that make sense that the +2 bonus is where.

In contrast with d100, d20 and 3d6 you can do the in-between stuff. Yeah that not worth +30% but it mean something so you get +10%

It the same trade off with advantage and disadvantage for 5e. You got three level of situational modifiers and that it. On the other hand, players seem to grasp it far better than numerical bonuses/minuses so I use it instead of the bonus system I used previously.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059785And 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.

Sorry to bust your theory there but it doesn't take 3 to 5 round because of Fudge/Fate. It because of the -3 Defense penalty I have at the top. I know I didn't explain my rules well but you can read them at this link (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip). But the Attack/Defense in the examples I posted are not a straight opposed check. The defender has -3 to his roll.

When I coded up the different combat systems I found there are two kinds of numbers. One set improves the odds of the one side winning. The other set determines how long it takes on average to produce a winner. D&D the to-hit bonus is an example of the former, the damage dice is an example of the latter. If I ran D&D combat with both sides doing 1d8+8 damage it would take half as long.

With more complex system like my MW RPG, and GURPS. It is a little more complex. In the case of the Fudge based MW RPG, the defense penalty is a primary factor in controlling the length of combat.

If I set the defense penalty to 0, combat stretches out to an average of 14 rounds.

Alex Wins 4958
Brian Wins 5042
Average Rds 14.81585
Total Initial Exchange Kills 105
Total Second Exchange Kills 87

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1059785I'm not entirely sure how this translates to Fate, though, due to its use of Conditions instead of regular Hit Points.

No difference, conditions are hit points. You just compute it indirectly based on degree of success and they are called by a different name.

But in the best case scenario a character can sustain a total number of successful hits equal to the number of scratches, hurt, very hurt, and incapacitated boxes. The worse case of course is a very high degree of success which could result in a single round kill.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1059873One thing I've been doing is reworking how damage works. I'm having Scale+Damage Resistance Attribute be something you roll when you are damage and you only use that result if it is positive. Every time you negate damage you gain a  disadvantage dice until you receive a wound or take a 15 minute short rest.

I've found a lot of players do not like "plinking" with ineffective attacks that hit, so this mechanic then allows for them to do something every time they hit while also giving a method to actually wound creatures of a massive scale without equally massive bonuses.

Read up on Harnmaster combat.

The basic gist is that when you get hit you suffer injury points. You also make a save. The exact type depends on the severity of the hit and the hit location. At the various least it will be a shock roll if failed will result in unconsciousness.

The key to make this work is that the current level of injury is a modifier to the save. So even plinking away at some point that modifiers will be so high the character will fail their save with even if it is but a scratch.

For Fudge/Fate. I would record the degree of success as part of a running injury total. Make a constitution/endurance/hardiness check, set the consequence based on the damage of the CURRENT blow. But modify the save negatively by the current injury total.

The more injury they have the hard it is to make a save for even the least of blows.

Free RPGs tend to suck. Interest in them dwindles.

Looks to me like FATE basically killed FUDGE.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060250Looks to me like FATE basically killed FUDGE.

Nah, it more like Fate was the only smash hit to have occurred using Fudge.

Quote from: estar;1060317Nah, it more like Fate was the only smash hit to have occurred using Fudge.

Yes, but it also stopped most people playing FUDGE anymore, and (as far as I know) anyone making any other successful FUDGE derivative.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060250Looks to me like FATE basically killed FUDGE.

More like fucked up Fudge, IMHO. Or screwed over? They even renamed the dice.

Quote from: 3rik;1060821More like fucked up Fudge, IMHO. Or screwed over? They even renamed the dice.

Well Fudge kind of killed fudge.

I showed some friends the 10th Anniversary Edition and no one would even touch the book. It was just physically repulsive to them. There are some table editing mistakes that even a casual read would have caught and the book suffers from a lack of cohesive vision or even awareness of what other articles said when referencing them.

For example, I think the coolest magic system was in the fantasy 5 point fudge example where magic was broad skills and spells may require several schools (conjuration, mesmerism, sorcery, etc) to cast. No example characters use that system and the spell examples introduce an entirely different and an overall boring magic system.

By the end of the book, I had an idea of a system I wanted to make, drafted up the basic idea in about 7 pages and now that project is dead. In the sense that this book made me feel confident in making an RPG with it, it is successful. What it doesn't do is sell the system and I think the licensing situation is still pretty F'd when it comes to making something to sell with the system (which is part of why Fate moved away from it so hard). Which leads to less sexy books, which leads to no one wanting to play it.

It's so dead I have one of their early copies and I've never used it and have no intention of every using it? That's pretty dead.

Quote from: 3rik;1060821More like fucked up Fudge, IMHO. Or screwed over? They even renamed the dice.

In fairness, they got permission to do so, with the caveat that they include a mention of Fudge in the tagline. So the packaging reads "Fate Dice: Dice for your Fate & Fudge Games."

I don't think there's much demand for a rules set toolkit.

There's a couple of Fudge-based games around that are actually decent to pretty good. They just haven't been succesfull enough to keep Fudge on the map.

Terra Incognita (https://rpggeek.com/rpg/1898/terra-incognita)
The Unexplained (https://rpggeek.com/rpg/3604/unexplained-chronicles-fpi)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060809Yes, but it also stopped most people playing FUDGE anymore, and (as far as I know) anyone making any other successful FUDGE derivative.

Until Fate there were no FUDGE derivative. Fate the only standout hit the FUDGE system had. The only serious Fudge effort outside of the core was the Deryni RPG based on Katherine Kurtz book series. There is Gatecrashers and some supplements like a Magical Medley. But until Fate it was little different than any other random second or third tier professional RPG. It main claim to fame was it's dice, it's genesis on the old internet newsgroups, and handy to use for an off the cuff RPG session or campaign.

Then there is the fact that Fudge in part spawned off the GURPS community. However very few does crunch quite like GURPS so that sucked the wind out of that aspect of FUDGE. You see traces of it in a Magical Medley but things dragged on, it wasn't a hit, there was little excitement, and wound up puttering along.

That is until Fate came along.

Quote from: estar;1061006Until Fate there were no FUDGE derivative. Fate the only standout hit the FUDGE system had. The only serious Fudge effort outside of the core was the Deryni RPG based on Katherine Kurtz book series. There is Gatecrashers and some supplements like a Magical Medley. But until Fate it was little different than any other random second or third tier professional RPG. It main claim to fame was it's dice, it's genesis on the old internet newsgroups, and handy to use for an off the cuff RPG session or campaign.

Then there is the fact that Fudge in part spawned off the GURPS community. However very few does crunch quite like GURPS so that sucked the wind out of that aspect of FUDGE. You see traces of it in a Magical Medley but things dragged on, it wasn't a hit, there was little excitement, and wound up puttering along.

That is until Fate came along.

There is a certain point to that, sure. There wasn't any major FUDGE-based game before FATE. But there were a ton of FUDGE variants that were being made at the homebrew level.

As the author, I'm saying you might want to take a look at this...

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/288199/The-Orb

It's a crunchier implementation of Fudge and a complete game--GMs will not be compelled to add anything. All proceeds are going to two cancer charities. If you have questions, fire away.

All the best,

John

I likes my FUDGE and haven't given it up at all, however also haven't managed to run a game for it at a convention or similar public venue for over a decade now.

I have some fantastic adventures written specifically for Terra Incognita, and really should publish these and make them available for Fudge/Fate fans. FUDGE also underpins one of my RPG's set during the American War for Independence, and I have a full rules set available for that as well, that I have used not too long ago it to run RPG games set during the Revolutionary war era. Ann Dupuis from Grey Ghost is still available and you can easily chat with her over on the Mystara FB mailing list, and you'll also find her commenting from time-to-time over on Bruce Heard's Calidar chat group too. As far as I know, Scott Larson (Author of Terra Incognita) doesn't really game anymore, however we have remained Facebook friends, and I do see him post once or twice a year, and it's usually about baseball. Being from Boston, he loves his Red Sox.

I have never really went with exclusively using the 10th anniversary edition mechanic of rolling just a 4df success test, because Estar is correct and the dice probabilities are skewed highly into the probability of auto-success, especially with just a +1 or +2 skills roll modifier. My personal preference is to conduct skills checks more often than not where the player is making an opposed roll against the comparable skill level of an NPC,  or monster, and the skill of an NPC that crafted an item, device or trap. Running games this way and also using lots of action modifiers tends to balance out that bias that favors of players simply taking an action in order to create a successful resolution. Add in critical success, and critical failures with exploding dice ranges and Fudge is just as fun to play as any other RPG.

Have to say that I enjoy FATE as well, and the FATE points pool that can modify a skills or challenge result in the game, the unfolding story or plotline of the game, or even the introduction of significant NPCs and factions keeps this game system as one that I want to continue running games for. The big thing, is FUDGE is a bare-bones RPG toolkit, and coming up with anything really good is a major and very time-consuming undertaking, which is something of an Anathema for young millennial game designers it would seem. God forbid they should actually have to use their brain and do some real creative work, to make an entertaining RPG game.

Not sure why anyone would have any trouble at all with the FUDGE gaming license, since it uses the Open Gaming Licence v 1.0a

IMO one of the very best FATE games that came out in 2015 was Sarah Newton's Mindjammer which is a post-humanist transhuman setting which features a well developed sci-fi toolkit that allows one to create a Tour-De-Force far future campaign setting that adds in a Luc Besson (His cinema credits include The Fifth Element, the original La Femme Nikita, The Transporter series, and of course Valerian) quality of pan-galactic sci-fi awesomeness.

Fudge could use some updating.  I bought two sets of zombie dice and used it as a sort of advantage/disadvantage method.  Basically green dice are advantage while red dice are disadvantage.  Mostly because green dice have one more brain aka success while red dice has one more explosion aka failure.  So green dice are +++00- while red dice are +00---.  It gets interesting once you apply it on FATE aspects instead of the usual +2 and forget about the fate points.

Quote from: ffilz;1059664Interesting, 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.

Keep in mind that in D&D a +1 to hit is a 5% more chance to hit.
But also in D&D that often also means a +1 to damage. The two combined can add up over several rounds. Even just a +1/5% to hit can add up over several rounds as you see. But that is over several rounds. Over shorter combats the tipping of the scales may be smaller. Even a combat as long as 10 rounds you might only hit one time more than normal. Or not. But that is one more hit than the opponent. So it is not as cut and dried as it seems since the number of rounds is a factor.

Who cares if FUDGE is dead? A roleplaying game is dead if no one is playing it. I am sure a small group of people are still playing it, somewhere. Is SPIs UNIVERSE dead? Doubt it. There is a crazy group or three somewhere still playing it. There is 300-350 million people in the US. That is a fuckton of people.

Quote from: Omega;1105433Keep in mind that in D&D a +1 to hit is a 5% more chance to hit.
But also in D&D that often also means a +1 to damage. The two combined can add up over several rounds.

+1 to hit and damage means that for two otherwise equal fighter and circumstances Fighter A will win 80% of the time over 10,000 fight. Of that the +1 damage is more significant as +1 damage alone means Fighter A will win 71% of the time. Fighter A having +1 to hit will win 60% of the time.

D&D Combat Simulator (http://www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/)
Source Code (http://www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/app.js)

In Fudge, assuming that damage is a function of the degree of success between two opposed rolls. Fighter A will win 77% of the time given a +1 to hit. Which also effects damage due to the role of degree of success in determining damage..

MW (Fudge) RPG Combat Simulator (http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/)
Source Code (http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/app.js)
First zero out every entry and just have +1 for OCV for Alex

However subbing in d6-d6 in lieu of 4dF produces a more reasonable increase to 65% of the time.
MW (Fudge) RPG Combat Simulator (http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg66/)
Source Code (http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg66/app.js)
Again zero out all entries giving Alex +1 OCV

Quote from: Omega;1105433Over shorter combats the tipping of the scales may be smaller.

It depends on the interplay of AC, +to hit, +damage, and damage dice. But in general you are correct that if you can take out your opponent in one or two hits, +1 attack is about as effective or more effective than +1 damage.

Quote from: Omega;1105433Even a combat as long as 10 rounds you might only hit one time more than normal. Or not. But that is one more hit than the opponent. So it is not as cut and dried as it seems since the number of rounds is a factor.

It is pretty cut and dice, if you use a simulator like I have to see how the different mechanics interact in terms of probability.

For Fudge the major issue is that degree of success determines damage. Unlike D&D, no amount of playing around with the combat procedures escapes that. I tried several things to no avail. As for omitting degree of success determining damage, while technically optional most fans consider it a core mechanic of Fudge. Separating the damage roll like in D&D and other RPGs just means the +1 problem is transferred over to the damage roll.

The easily solution without mangling Fudge badly is to switch to d6-d6 for a +5 to -5 result.

Quote from: LouGoncey;1105540Who cares if FUDGE is dead? A roleplaying game is dead if no one is playing it. I am sure a small group of people are still playing it, somewhere. Is SPIs UNIVERSE dead? Doubt it. There is a crazy group or three somewhere still playing it. There is 300-350 million people in the US. That is a fuckton of people.

Because Fudge is presented as a toolkit for DiYers and it is useful to know what you getting into before putting in hours of your hobby time.

As it stands Fudge (or Fate) is pretty good for making one off sessions or short campaigns provided one has a good grasp on the setting or genre. But fares poorly for long term campaigns.

Quote from: estar;1105571Because Fudge is presented as a toolkit for DiYers and it is useful to know what you getting into before putting in hours of your hobby time.

As it stands Fudge (or Fate) is pretty good for making one off sessions or short campaigns provided one has a good grasp on the setting or genre. But fares poorly for long term campaigns.

I feel like if you were set on running Fudge or Fate you can just recruit players. Get new players and have them play. People are pretty easygoing about system when you've already pitched playing and they're interested.

Or is it bad for campaigns because of something inherent to the system?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1105580I feel like if you were set on running Fudge or Fate you can just recruit players. Get new players and have them play. People are pretty easygoing about system when you've already pitched playing and they're interested.

As I said if you know your genre, setting, or adventure down cold Fudges (or Fate) works well as something with a tad more meat to the mechanics than say Microlite. The author tried to make it easy to translate genre specific or real world specific into Fudge terms.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1105580Or is it bad for campaigns because of something inherent to the system?

The advancement of characters is problematic due to the outsized benefit of gaining +1 in an ability or skill.  Other than that it is no better or worse than any other arbitrary RPG especially if you opt for Traveller style character advancement. I.e. it happens but infrequent and only after a good deal of in-game time has passed.

FUDGE is an absolutely great game for one-shots and getting non-gamers to play in an easy to grok one-shot.

I've run short campaigns with it, but it shines for one-shots.

It's "dead" because like most other "lite systems", there's not much for a publisher to sell long term.

Quote from: estar;1105570+1 to hit and damage means that for two otherwise equal fighter and circumstances Fighter A will win 80% of the time over 10,000 fight. Of that the +1 damage is more significant as +1 damage alone means Fighter A will win 71% of the time. Fighter A having +1 to hit will win 60% of the time.

I played around with it and similar.

It is interesting that over such an immense spread a +1 to hit resulted in around a jump of 10% on wins.
But a +1 to damage resulted in around a 20% jump in wins.
 
Pit a strong fighter with just +1 damage against a more accurate fighter with +1 to hit and it shifts to the strong fighter winning around 12% more often. 3% if the accurate fighter has a +2 bonus and the agile fighter wins around 3% of the time once they get up to a +3 bonus. And continues the progression to 12% then 20% with +4 and +5.

Now pit a strong fighter with the max 18/00  STR bonus of +6 vs that agile fighter with a to hit bonus of +5 and damage beats accuracy nearly 40% of the time.

Quote from: LouGoncey;1105540Is SPIs UNIVERSE dead? Doubt it. There is a crazy group or three somewhere still playing it.

My computer still runs a few programs I wrote to generate stuff from UNIVERSE.

I love Universe and still use parts of it in Star Frontiers.

Also it saw a brief resurgance when players realized a year or two ago that WOTC AGAIN let an acquisition slip through their butter fingers and allowed the license to expire allowing a fan remake with the Universe/Pandora/Star Trader IP filed off.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105664FUDGE is an absolutely great game for one-shots and getting non-gamers to play in an easy to grok one-shot.

I've run short campaigns with it, but it shines for one-shots.

It's "dead" because like most other "lite systems", there's not much for a publisher to sell long term.

I'm in total agreement with the above.^^

FUDGE is great and the biggest thing holding it back is its presentation.

Fudge is so dead Disco came back! :cool: