All in all, despite what I said, FUDGE is quite amazing.  There is no reason why you shouldn't try it yourself (unless you have found a game you are already satisfied with).

I played STARBLAZER ADVENTURES using FUDGE -- it went very well, although over 4/5s of the book went unused.

Quote from: Soylent Green;809153

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;809077Simple question: Can I run "fate" powered games using fudge?

(Strip out the system of Dresden Files/SoTC/Diaspora, for example, and just use fudge?)

Yes/No?

SotC and Diaspora I believe so. Other than dropping Aspects you also might want look at the wound system given that Consequences are a type of Aspect. I don't know Dresden so I can't say.

Atomic Robo?

Hmm, the thing I don't like about Fudge is, it seems like from the Grey Ghost page that you get Fudge by.

1. Downloading a free 20 year old pdf.
2. Buying the latest version as a 35 dollar hardback.
3. Buy some other game that's a specific Fudge implementation.

They're really shooting for the Pants On Head marketing strategy aren't they?

Quote from: CRKrueger;8094061. Downloading a free 20 year old pdf.
2. Buying the latest version as a 35 dollar hardback.
3. Buy some other game that's a specific Fudge implementation.

FUDGE is OGL and there is an SRD available (online and as PDF):
http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/php/Omar/fudge/srd.php/srd.html

I love the concept of FUDGE, but the rulebook always seemed too vague to me. I've run games with dice and games which are diceless, and FUDGE seems like a nice bridge between the two. I just didn't quite "get it" when I read the rules.

Quote from: gonster;809069What makes FUDGE great is also one of the reasons it is not popular.

FUDGE ignores everything except how good you are at a certain 'thing.'  You are a mediocre fighter or you are a great fighter.

That is fantastic.  It is simple in it's execution.

It is also it's greatest weakness.

If you are a good fighter, and you are going up against a great fighter, chances are you are going to lose.  Whenever there are more than two steps between the skill levels of 2 opponents, the lesser opponent will almost never win.

That makes FUDGE incredibly life-like -- which makes it a terrible game for most players.

Does that mean it would be good for a PvP style game? Since you have some reliability to the numbers but there's still dice and chance involved so they can't get mad at the GM for losing.

Quote from: finarvyn;809533I love the concept of FUDGE, but the rulebook always seemed too vague to me. I've run games with dice and games which are diceless, and FUDGE seems like a nice bridge between the two. I just didn't quite "get it" when I read the rules.

Have you checked out any games that already have the necessary Fudge rules included?

Quote from: finarvyn;809533I love the concept of FUDGE, but the rulebook always seemed too vague to me. I've run games with dice and games which are diceless, and FUDGE seems like a nice bridge between the two. I just didn't quite "get it" when I read the rules.

Hack and Slash

Short, simple, and to the point. Has all the Fudge essentials in it. And you are already familiar with the genre as a bonus.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;809515FUDGE is OGL and there is an SRD available (online and as PDF):
http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/php/Omar/fudge/srd.php/srd.html

Cool thanks, I don't know why the hell a fan had to put together the 2005 version and they only have the 1995 version on their own site.

Quote from: CRKrueger;809406Hmm, the thing I don't like about Fudge is, it seems like from the Grey Ghost page that you get Fudge by.

1. Downloading a free 20 year old pdf.
2. Buying the latest version as a 35 dollar hardback.
3. Buy some other game that's a specific Fudge implementation.

They're really shooting for the Pants On Head marketing strategy aren't they?

Why?
1: It's free to own and use and has been since the beginning;
2: Is it the price that offends?;
3: Yup, most FUDGE games are implementations of FUDGE not pure FUDGE.

They are simply not bothered about commercialisation.
Worked quite well didn't it, given how successful FATE is right now, and who knows someone else might hand roll another FUDGE game at some point.

Not everyone does things for commercial reasons, and maybe as gamers we should just grok that and enjoy it.

Quote from: tzunder;810203Why?
1: It's free to own and use and has been since the beginning;
2: Is it the price that offends?;
3: Yup, most FUDGE games are implementations of FUDGE not pure FUDGE.

They are simply not bothered about commercialisation.
Worked quite well didn't it, given how successful FATE is right now, and who knows someone else might hand roll another FUDGE game at some point.

Not everyone does things for commercial reasons, and maybe as gamers we should just grok that and enjoy it.

Sorry for the necro, but I do agree with these key points (1) individual Fudge games are subsets, implementations and re-elaborations of the core Fudge rules and (2) a lot of do with for fun with no commercial ambitions.

Case to point, in the last year or so I've released, totally free, the following:
Cyberblues City  - my recent, Fudge cyberpunk game the deviates substantially from vanilla Fudge.
https://ukrpdc.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/cyberblues-city/

Mutant Bikers of the Atomic Wastelands - 20th Anniversary Edition - Old, streamlined version of Fudge geared for beer & pretzel play. The new edition just updates layout and touches up the art.
https://ukrpdc.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/mutant-bikers-of-the-atomic-wastelands/

I also release released a couple for Cyberlbues City. Working with Fudge is fun and liberating. The basic building blocks are very flexible and as long as you remained disciplined with + bonuses you aren't likely to break anything.

I'd like to see a nice Fudge Amber rules set as a way to put some randomness in my diceless combats. I did a search long ago for something like this, but was troubled to find one by the guy who developed FATE that said:

QuoteI'm doing away with 'stats', and moving the focus to 'gifts' and 'skills'; what it is about you that is intrinsic, and what it is that you do to what degree of competency. So, we don't have the stat 'Warfare' -- we have the skills 'Bladed Weaponry', 'Military Command', and so on.

Well, that sort of kills what I wanted.

The problem remains that +1 using Fudge Dice is a huge significant bonus compared to adding bonuses to other bell curve system.

For example if you run 10,000 combat where two guys whack each other trading blows a +1 in GURPS mean that a 50-50 contest of either opponent winning will now become 54% vs 46% in favor of the guy with the +1.

IN contrast in Fudge +1 will turn that into 63% vs. 36% in favor of the guy with the +1.

It big enough that nearly every single player regardless of ability has noticed the disparity.

I couldn't make it work for a campaign which is too bad because Fudge is pretty elegant in many ways.

Quote from: gonster;809069What makes FUDGE great is also one of the reasons it is not popular.

FUDGE ignores everything except how good you are at a certain 'thing.'  You are a mediocre fighter or you are a great fighter.

That is fantastic.  It is simple in it's execution.

It is also it's greatest weakness.

If you are a good fighter, and you are going up against a great fighter, chances are you are going to lose.  Whenever there are more than two steps between the skill levels of 2 opponents, the lesser opponent will almost never win.

That makes FUDGE incredibly life-like -- which makes it a terrible game for most players.

Quote from: JonWake;809146It sounds like the issue with FUDGE is that the levels are so significant that having a difference of more than two makes victory a foregone conclusion. And rolling 4dF means that the bell curve is pretty flat, which makes great success or great failure unlikely.

In actual play, how did this work out?

Quote from: estar;902349The problem remains that +1 using Fudge Dice is a huge significant bonus compared to adding bonuses to other bell curve system.

For example if you run 10,000 combat where two guys whack each other trading blows a +1 in GURPS mean that a 50-50 contest of either opponent winning will now become 54% vs 46% in favor of the guy with the +1.

IN contrast in Fudge +1 will turn that into 63% vs. 36% in favor of the guy with the +1.

It big enough that nearly every single player regardless of ability has noticed the disparity.

I couldn't make it work for a campaign which is too bad because Fudge is pretty elegant in many ways.

Step 1, replace 4dF with d6-d6 or 2d6-7 (you can treat the -5 and +5 results as 0, or leave them as-is).
Step 2, make sure you fight when the modifiers are on your side. That's good enough for Corwin of Amber, so it's good enough for you, too!

Quote from: AsenRG;902367Step 1, replace 4dF with d6-d6 or 2d6-7 (you can treat the -5 and +5 results as 0, or leave them as-is).

It better but still noticably different. I was mistaken about the odds in the previous post. That was the result of using 1d6-1d6. The result of +1 using 4dF is to transform the odds to 73% to 37%. Logically this would seem to effect Traveller as well how that game is more about hitting target numbers than opposed rolls.

Quote from: AsenRG;902367Step 2, make sure you fight when the modifiers are on your side. That's good enough for Corwin of Amber, so it's good enough for you, too!

The problem is that +1 becomes an all or nothing bonus. It hard to construct a reason progression for characters with the dramatics leaps in the odds of success that the mechanics generates.

I am a computer programming by trade and I coded up a command line application that will run 10,000 combat between two D&D fighter, two Fudge Fighter (using four different combat sequence including my own), Fudge Hack n Slash, and GURPS. The simulation is two guys taking turns swinging at each other.  I developed to allow me to get a baseline on the effect of a bonus and/or change in the combat sequence.

However the Fudge stuff was all based on opposed rolls. I should come up with a sequence based off a target number and see what changes.

For example instead of rolling 4dF + Offense versus 4dF + Defense, I would come up with a static defensive value and just have the attacker roll 4dF+Offense against that.