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 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 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