So like every body on the planet, I've been playing around with an RPG system, going through game books and finding the cool bits that do interesting things, looking for unique game elements.
Holy crap, FUDGE is sort of amazing. I mean, it has the Bell Curve reliability of GURPS while completely side-stepping the issues that can crop up in roll-under systems, and avoids throwing more than +/-4 at any given check.
Aside from FATE (which I remain skeptical of), has anyone done anything with FUDGE?
Quote from: JonWake;809024Aside from FATE (which I remain skeptical of), has anyone done anything with FUDGE?
Yes my "Fantasy Heartbreaker"
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip
Not complete yet.
Here are all my notes so far
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/Fudge
There is Hack and Slash over on RPGNow
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/23741/HacknSlash-Fantasy-Roleplay--Gamemasters-Edition?it=1
The only pitfall of the system is that +1 is a big deal.
For example two fighters with the same stats each win 50% of the time.
Under Hack-n-Slash a +1 skill will mean that the one fighter wins 80% of the time.
Under my rules a +1 skill will mean the one Fighter wins 73% of the time.
http://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/
The upside of the system that due the Scale mechanic it handles different size creatures and objects really well.
My contribution, such as it is, to Fudge was something called Mutant Bikers of the Atomic Wastelands. I must of written it some 15 - 20 years ago, I'm not even quite sure myself.
You can still get it here for free:
http://ukrpdc.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/mutant-bikers-of-the-atomic-wastelands-a-detour/
The pdf is a screen grab from my long defunct MBAW website so the formatting leaves a little to be desired. I keep telling myself one I'll redo the layout properly, I've drawn the cover.
Its successor, Bounty Hunters of the Atomic Wasteland I only released last year. I think it is a much better and more complete game. It based on Fate rather than Fudge though converting it to Fudge would be trivial (drop-the-Aspects-and-you're-done trivial). It is also free because that's the sort of guy I am :-)
http://ukrpdc.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/bounty-hunters-of-the-atomic-wastelands/
I stay clear of Fate but I own two Fudge games that I'm rather fond of: Terra Incognita, a neat game about a society of Victorian gentleman-eplorers with a subtle hint of Jules Vernesque weird science, and The Unexplained, a game of "real-life" paranormal investigation.
I can't grok FATE, but I have enjoyed FUDGE a great deal. I ran a Matrix & a Chaose Earth mini-campaign and I was surprised how much both rocked.
But Estar's right, a +1 bonus / -1 penalty is a BIG deal.
So, scanned the free SRD, and FUDGE is obviously a tool kit. Basically, could one call it FATE without all the wonky aspects? I'm tempted to run me some FUDGE sometime, but need to get a handle on how many levels (points) to handout at CharGen. For example, if I had 7 Attributes and 27 skills, how many points would make sense? (I assume I can eventually find this info in the FUDGE SRD).
Quote from: cranebump;809048So, scanned the free SRD, and FUDGE is obviously a tool kit. Basically, could one call it FATE without all the wonky aspects? I'm tempted to run me some FUDGE sometime, but need to get a handle on how many levels (points) to handout at CharGen. For example, if I had 7 Attributes and 27 skills, how many points would make sense? (I assume I can eventually find this info in the FUDGE SRD).
There are guidelines for this in the FUDGE SRD.
Quote from: cranebump;809048So, scanned the free SRD, and FUDGE is obviously a tool kit. Basically, could one call it FATE without all the wonky aspects? I'm tempted to run me some FUDGE sometime, but need to get a handle on how many levels (points) to handout at CharGen. For example, if I had 7 Attributes and 27 skills, how many points would make sense? (I assume I can eventually find this info in the FUDGE SRD).
There's no right answer because Fudge is indeed a tool kit system. However if you search for Five Point Fudge you should find the official pre-fab generic version of the system.
Also Fate is a bit more than just Fudge with Aspects. It makes much more use of margin of success and it has a wider range of subsystems. That said you can quite easily play most Fate games as Fudge with very little effort.
What 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.
Simple 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?
Quote from: JonWake;809024So like every body on the planet, I've been playing around with an RPG system, going through game books and finding the cool bits that do interesting things, looking for unique game elements.
Holy crap, FUDGE is sort of amazing. I mean, it has the Bell Curve reliability of GURPS while completely side-stepping the issues that can crop up in roll-under systems, and avoids throwing more than +/-4 at any given check.
Aside from FATE (which I remain skeptical of), has anyone done anything with FUDGE?
Hrrmmm? Yes.
I put together a Fudge
New Battlestar Galactica Game before the
Coretex System new BSG was published.
Also run
Terra Incognita games... which is like a Pulp/Steampunk mashup that goes from the Turn of the Century to the beginnings of WWII.
Also use Fudge for a American War of Indepence (AWI) miniatures wargame.
It's versatile, flexible, and extremely fun in the hands of a competent GM.
It 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: 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.
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?
I'm not sure what makes this in issue. You have Fudge points for those times you really want to beat the odds, but otherwise Fudge dice give a very satisfying level of randomness. It can still surprise you (rolls of +3 or better/ -3 or worse will occur roughly as often as a natural 1 or 20 on a d20), but generally it means that you your character won't comically, consistently fail at task they should be good at.
PS:
Just to recap. In the course of a Fudge game:
60% of all dice rolls will yield predictable results.
40% of all dice rolls will can be considered lucky or unlucky results.
12% of all dice rolls will, additionally, be spectacularly lucky or unlucky.
I think that is a good spread.
A friend raved about how awesome the Deryni RPG (http://derynirealms.com/) was, back when it came out.
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;809153Quote 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 (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/571/Digital-Alchemy/subcategory/1546_6440/HacknSlash)
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.
I heard great things about Fudge. I was also told the flaw of it was that the higher your ability, the more dF you rolled, therefore the more chances you had of rolling negative numbers and getting a lower result than if you rolled less dFs. Is that right? It sounds a bit goofy.
Note: I have not played Fudge, just something I heard from a critic of the system at one point. I thought I'd ask since this thread popped up.
Quote from: finarvyn;902341I'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 [...]
FATE was developed precisely because the developers were dissatisfied with Amber Diceless' mechanics. So you've come full circle.
Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;902389I heard great things about Fudge. I was also told the flaw of it was that the higher your ability, the more dF you rolled, therefore the more chances you had of rolling negative numbers and getting a lower result than if you rolled less dFs. Is that right? It sounds a bit goofy.
Note: I have not played Fudge, just something I heard from a critic of the system at one point. I thought I'd ask since this thread popped up.
Now Fudge is a toolkit so there may be some variant involving adding dice. But the main rules focus on just using 4dFs with a number range of -4 to +4. Skills and attribute are rated also numerically and the two are added together. It is also descriptive in that each level of number is assign an adjective like average, mediocre, or amazing. But Fudge (or Fate) are not a dice pool system.
Quote from: estar;902419But Fudge (or Fate) is a dice pool system.
Do you consider GURPS a "Dice Pool System"?
Quote from: daniel_ream;902475Do you consider GURPS a "Dice Pool System"?
I mistyped they are not dice pool systems.
Quote from: daniel_ream;902412FATE was developed precisely because the developers were dissatisfied with Amber Diceless' mechanics. So you've come full circle.
I was aware of the history of FATE. I would like to have something in between instead of going all the way into FATE. And I haven't come full circle because I don't enjoy FATE so much; I don't think it has an Amber "feel" to it at all.
I do appreciate the irony of your post, however. ;-)
Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;902389I heard great things about Fudge. I was also told the flaw of it was that the higher your ability, the more dF you rolled, therefore the more chances you had of rolling negative numbers and getting a lower result than if you rolled less dFs. Is that right? It sounds a bit goofy.
Note: I have not played Fudge, just something I heard from a critic of the system at one point. I thought I'd ask since this thread popped up.
I thought in Fudge you generally rolled four dice (4d3-8, effectively) and that the number of dice rolled did not change with skill.
(Since each die averages 0 (equal chance of +1 or -1), adding more dice wouldn't bias the result but would expand the possible range of results. If you could
choose the number of dice, you could only reach for far above your ability level if you risked abject failure far below your ability level. That seems more feature than bug; the difference between playing it safe or going for it all, like rolling versus "taking 10" in a d20 game. If you couldn't choose, then it does sound a bit goofy.)
Quote from: finarvyn;902487I was aware of the history of FATE. I would like to have something in between instead of going all the way into FATE. And I haven't come full circle because I don't enjoy FATE so much; I don't think it has an Amber "feel" to it at all.
I do appreciate the irony of your post, however. ;-)
IIRC, FATE was actually created with Zelazni's "Lord of Light" in mind;).
Quote from: daniel_ream;902412So you've come full circle.
Quote from: finarvyn;902487And I haven't come full circle because I don't enjoy FATE so much; I don't think it has an Amber "feel" to it at all.
Now
THIS (http://fateofamber.wikidot.com/) would be the "proper" full circle. ;)
Quote from: AsenRG;902532IIRC, FATE was actually created with Zelazni's "Lord of Light" in mind;).
You sure about "Lord..."?
BTW, does Zelazny translates to "Iron" in Bulgarian too?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;902534You sure about "Lord..."?
No, I read it on Internet:). But it makes sense when you consider what Invoking Aspects would have been in Lord of Light, no?
QuoteBTW, does Zelazny translates to "Iron" in Bulgarian too?
Depending on how you pronounce the first "z" and the "a", yes, or at least the association is rather strong;).
Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;902389I was also told the flaw of it was that the higher your ability, the more dF you rolled, therefore the more chances you had of rolling negative numbers and getting a lower result than if you rolled less dFs. Is that right? It sounds a bit goofy.
It's totally incorrect, but interesting that you have heard this because it's exactly the way I tried to play it the first time. As you suggested, rolling more dF's doesn't make you "better" at all but screws with the probability curve so that you have the potential for higher extremes (both ways) but more probability of being near the center.
Each dF has six sides, marked with two negative and two neutral and two positive. Essentially they are d3's only centered around zero instead of 2. If you only roll 1dF you have a 33% chance of -1, 33% of zero, 33% of +1. If you roll 2dF you get probabilities of 11% for -2, 22% for -1 33% for zero, 22% for +1 and 11% for +2, so you can go both higher and lower but it starts to stretch out the bell shape. 3dF gives 1 way to roll a -3, 3 ways to get -2, 6 ways to get -1, 7 ways to get zero, 6 to get +1, 3 to get +2, and 1 to get +3. We continue to see the same effect where the graph gets stretched out more as more dF's are added in.
Anyway, you roll 4dF for everything.
Quote from: AsenRG;902539No, I read it on Internet:). But it makes sense when you consider what Invoking Aspects would have been in Lord of Light, no?
I dunno. Since pretty much anything might be an Aspect, it kind of removes their "easily recognizable" As... I mean status. ;)
It wouldn't be that hard to describe pretty much every work of fiction, or real-life events from the perspective of Aspects, so I don't think that "Lord..." is that easily recognizable choice for Aspect-based mechanics... Still, it's not that it's important, just curiosity & stuff.
QuoteDepending on how you pronounce the first "z" and the "a", yes, or at least the association is rather strong;).
I see. I wonder whether the Anglosphere realizes about this - "
the Iron Roger" sounds damn awesome. :cool:
Quote from: JesterRaiin;902542I dunno. Since pretty much anything might be an Aspect, it kind of removes their "easily recognizable" As... I mean status. ;)
It wouldn't be that hard to describe pretty much every work of fiction, or real-life events from the perspective of Aspects, so I don't think that "Lord..." is that easily recognizable choice for Aspect-based mechanics... Still, it's not that it's important, just curiosity & stuff.
The difference is, "invoking an Aspect" is a purely in-character action in Lord of the Light;).
QuoteI see. I wonder whether the Anglosphere realizes about this - "the Iron Roger" sounds damn awesome. :cool:
Some Russian editions of his books actually "correct the spelling" making him "Roger Zhelyazny", which means exactly "the Iron Roger":D.
And in what concerns the Anglosphere, I don't know, but you're in the right place to ask.
Quote from: AsenRG;902545The difference is, "invoking an Aspect" is a purely in-character action in Lord of the Light;).
I get it, but it doesn't convince me - I;m thinking about what Aspects
are, rather than how are they named. As such, they are relevant to, like, any work of fiction, ever. ;)
QuoteSome Russian editions of his books actually "correct the spelling" making him "Roger Zhelyazny", which means exactly "the Iron Roger":D.
And in what concerns the Anglosphere, I don't know, but you're in the right place to ask.
Naaaah, let that be a little secret of ours. You know, each time people will
invoke Roger's surname, we're gonna look at each other and send "heh, they don't know", "ya, they don't know" super-sikret-message. :D
Quote from: JesterRaiin;902547I get it, but it doesn't convince me - I;m thinking about what Aspects are, rather than how are they named. As such, they are relevant to, like, any work of fiction, ever. ;)
I can't point you to a primary source, but I recall (and Wikipedia concurs) that Fate was developed with the long term aspiration of making the Dresden Files RPG.
Quote from: dbm;902565I can't point you to a primary source, but I recall (and Wikipedia concurs) that Fate was developed with the long term aspiration of making the Dresden Files RPG.
Plot thickens. ;)
Fun fact, irrelevant to the thread: although I like Harry Dresden's adventures, I have been using
The Dresden Files RPG to run adventures built on this comic book series:
(http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/6/67663/3573044-00.jpg)
With all this blood around, people exploding, severed limbs flying all around and my PCs playing Gravel's disciples,
shit was sooooo cash. :cool:
Quote from: dbm;902565[...] Fate was developed with the long term aspiration of making the Dresden Files RPG.
Citation needed.
The timelines at least match up, but that smells a lot like George Lucas levels of retconning.
Quote from: daniel_ream;902577Citation needed.
The timelines at least match up, but that smells a lot like George Lucas levels of retconning.
Like I say, it's hard to put my hand on a direct quote which supports my recollection, but here are a couple of posts from Rob Donohughe which describe the evolution of Fate:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FateRPG/conversations/messages/4862
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/dan_martland/7848f0bdda5a3231fe15273834733312_zpsucpvpfgu.jpg)
And this post gives more credence to SotC at least being a test-bed for Dresden files:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FateRPG/conversations/messages/4786
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/dan_martland/74ec0886526aeab696502b65a231b284_zpsf7mklr6f.jpg)
The Wikipedia entry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dresden_Files_Roleplaying_Game) from Dresden Files RPG talks about the previous work on the game being jettisoned and SotC used as a test bed:
"Jim Butcher, author of The Dresden Files, was an old friend of some of the founders of Evil Hat Productions. When Butcher's agent, Jennifer Jackson, started receiving queries about roleplaying rights to the series, Butcher contacted Evil Hat to create and publish a Dresden Files RPG. Evil Hat brought in Genevieve Cogman to do the research on the six Dresden Files that had been written by that time in 2004, as well as the ten more that were written by the time Evil Hat decided to put a cap on what the game would cover several years later. They also announced in 2006 that they'd needed to discard the alpha version of The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game and go right back to the drawing board, and that Spirit of the Century would use the first version of the engine they'd created for The Dresden Files RPG."
Quote from: finarvyn;902541It's totally incorrect, but interesting that you have heard this because it's exactly the way I tried to play it the first time. As you suggested, rolling more dF's doesn't make you "better" at all but screws with the probability curve so that you have the potential for higher extremes (both ways) but more probability of being near the center.
That's exactly why I could not wrap my mind around the system as described to me, it just seemed wrong somehow. I'm glad I asked for clarification.
Fuck whoever told me wrong then, I'm gonna have to look into Fudge...
Well, maybe after these next couple campaigns. :D
QuoteEvil Hat brought in Genevieve Cogman to do the research on the six Dresden Files that had been written by that time in 2004
Fate 1.0 being released in 2003, that definitely does imply the Dresden work goes right back to the beginning. Interesting history. I stand corrected.
Jim Butcher is a friend of Fred Hicks; Fred new him when the first Dresden book was still being written.
Quote from: dbm;902643Jim Butcher is a friend of Fred Hicks; Fred new him when the first Dresden book was still being written.
He is or was the webmaster and forum moderator over at http://jim-butcher.com/
If you listen to this podcast both Jim and Fred are on it:
http://www.thewalkingeye.com/?cat=599
Again, they talk about how the game is intentionally keyed to supporting narratives like Dresden, and imply that Aspects are the key mechanism that facilities this.
Okay so with Fudge, the whole point is *not* to use modifiers often, we use the straight up dice throws with the five point fudge system , where every character is superb doing one thing, very good with doing two other things, above average at doing three things, and is mediocre at everything else (no dice mods).
This game system is inherently designed to ensure that every player that creates a character will have the opportunity to use their skills and abilities to influence the game. This is a game that is designed to ensure that all the players can meaningfully participate, and throws the rules lawyers and min-maxers who invariably try to hog the spotlight into the gutter, where they rightfully belong.
Now Fate spun this around a bit, by giving the players the tools to meaningfully participate as co-GMs, to not only influence their characters development, but the GMs gameworld as well. Some GM's are very uncomfortable with this.
Finally AD&D and Fudge are very closely related. If you look at AD&D character attributes, the attribute ability modifiers typically chart across a range which exactly matches the range Fudge dice results provide, namely -4 to +4. Just found this veeeery interesting, j...just sayin.
Quote from: GameDaddy;902864Finally AD&D and Fudge are very closely related.
I always found FUDGE to be essentially GURPS with simpler, less interdependent mechanics. I don't see the AD&D analogy at all.
Quote from: daniel_ream;902907I always found FUDGE to be essentially GURPS with simpler, less interdependent mechanics. I don't see the AD&D analogy at all.
Well it did start out as GURPS with size scaling done right.
Quote from: daniel_ream;902907I always found FUDGE to be essentially GURPS with simpler, less interdependent mechanics. I don't see the AD&D analogy at all.
Take any attribute, then look at the modifier, compare it to D&D;
Attribute
(D&D Modifier) Fudge equivalent Fudge Description
Value
2-3
(-4) -4 Abysmal
4-5
(-3) -3 Terrible
6-7
(-2) -2 Poor
8-9
(-1) -1 Mediocre
10-11
(0) 0 Fair
12-13
(+1) +1 Good
14-15
(+2) +2 Great
16-17
(+3) +3 Superb
18-19
(+4) +4 Legendary
Any D&D skill gets to use the attribute bonus modifier as part of the d20 die roll. As the character gains levels they can usually add 1 skill rank rank for each skill they have, which gives them a +1 bonus on a d20 die roll.
Any fudge dice roll gets to use the fudge modifier for the skill description. For example using a legendary skill provides a +4 bonus on a fudge die roll, which is 4df+4
Each fudge pip is worth +4 D&D pips, so a legendary skills roll would add +16 to your D&D skills roll attempt if you were using a d20 to make the skills roll check instead of using 4df.
It is eminently transferable. Now this allows me to use D&D character very easily in Fudge, and vice versa, because the attribute and skills resolution mechanics are essentially at the very core 100% compatible, just using different scales.
Now Gurps was a 3d6 system, and each GURPS skill point adds a modifier of one to your die roll, and you only have to roll under your skill level (Think d&D attribute here) so it is very nearly compatible with both D&D and FUDGE.
These three systems, use different mechanics to look at the same basic range of attributes, (GURPS range is slight smaller, so each modifier is slightly more powerful than in D&D or Fudge) ...and these may be called attributes, these may be called skills, these may be called (In Fudge) Gifts & Faults, as well.
...any other questions about this?
I think that while the comparisons with GURPs aren't out of place, they do miss the range of Fudge. Fudge isn't just 5-Point Fudge. The core rules include a lot more radical options like "subjective character creation" (you just build the character as you see fit, without point restrictions, like TSR Mavel Super Heroes' modelling method) as well as option for diceless play. While it is common for Fudge games to provide a fixed list of Attributes, it is not required. You can have one player in the same game session create a character with "Strength, Dexterity, Constitution,Intelligence, Charisma" attributes and another with just "Fighting, Thinking, Chatting". Hell, in Mutant Bikers of the Atomic Wastelands is didn't even use Attributes, just had Skills.
This extreme range of options makes Fudge hard to pin down, but it doesn't make it very fun system with which to design games, or just customised campaigns.
Quote from: Soylent Green;903217I think that while the comparisons with GURPs aren't out of place, they do miss the range of Fudge. Fudge isn't just 5-Point Fudge. The core rules include a lot more radical options like "subjective character creation" (you just build the character as you see fit, without point restrictions, like TSR Mavel Super Heroes' modelling method) as well as option for diceless play. While it is common for Fudge games to provide a fixed list of Attributes, it is not required. You can have one player in the same game session create a character with "Strength, Dexterity, Constitution,Intelligence, Charisma" attributes and another with just "Fighting, Thinking, Chatting". Hell, in Mutant Bikers of the Atomic Wastelands is didn't even use Attributes, just had Skills.
This extreme range of options makes Fudge hard to pin down, but it doesn't make it very fun system with which to design games, or just customised campaigns.
Fudge has always struck me more as a system-creation-kit than a system.
I told SOS something similar when he was soliciting feedback on one of the early drafts: that it wasn't a game so much as a really good essay on rpg design with copious worked examples.
Quote from: GameDaddy;902864Okay so with Fudge, the whole point is *not* to use modifiers often, we use the straight up dice throws with the five point fudge system , where every character is superb doing one thing, very good with doing two other things, above average at doing three things, and is mediocre at everything else (no dice mods).
This game system is inherently designed to ensure that every player that creates a character will have the opportunity to use their skills and abilities to influence the game. This is a game that is designed to ensure that all the players can meaningfully participate, and throws the rules lawyers and min-maxers who invariably try to hog the spotlight into the gutter, where they rightfully belong.
Now Fate spun this around a bit, by giving the players the tools to meaningfully participate as co-GMs, to not only influence their characters development, but the GMs gameworld as well. Some GM's are very uncomfortable with this.
Some players aren't either.
But this isn't originally what FATE did at all. FATE 2nd Edition introduced Aspects as basically freeform traits but had none of the narrative editing, FATE point economy, or other storygame trappings of the modern iteration of FATE. And it was good.
Quote from: TristramEvans;903400Some players aren't either.
But this isn't originally what FATE did at all. FATE 2nd Edition introduced Aspects as basically freeform traits but had none of the narrative editing, FATE point economy, or other storygame trappings of the modern iteration of FATE. And it was good.
Exactly. FATE is decent RPG. The Storygaming stuff was tacked-on after the fact. And the proof that it's an RPG and not a Storygame is that you can easily remove all the storygaming stuff without any problems.
Quote from: RPGPundit;904270Exactly. FATE is decent RPG. The Storygaming stuff was tacked-on after the fact. And the proof that it's an RPG and not a Storygame is that you can easily remove all the storygaming stuff without any problems.
Which is probably why we liked it when we first tried it, we removed it almost without noticing;).
Quote from: RPGPundit;904270Exactly. FATE is decent RPG. The Storygaming stuff was tacked-on after the fact. And the proof that it's an RPG and not a Storygame is that you can easily remove all the storygaming stuff without any problems.
Yes, we've
always been at war with Eastasia.
Quote from: daniel_ream;904452Yes, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
That phrase really only works if you weren't actually always at war with Eastasia. But in this particular metaphor, I have!
Quote from: RPGPundit;905481That phrase really only works if you weren't actually always at war with Eastasia. But in this particular metaphor, I have!
Your definition of storygame seems to mutate based on what you happen to like, rather than the other way around. But whatever, I'm not arguing with a cartoon.
I still want to learn how to build Super Powers...:confused:
Quote from: DarcyDettmann;905578I still want to learn how to build Super Powers...:confused:
Any number of RPGs allow you to "build your own power";).
Every RPG allows you to build your own powers. Some RPGs give you an optional system of abstruse equations that will let you write an arbitrary number next to the power that you can pretend means something.
Quote from: AsenRG;905579Any number of RPGs allow you to "build your own power";).
Quote from: daniel_ream;905588Every RPG allows you to build your own powers. Some RPGs give you an optional system of abstruse equations that will let you write an arbitrary number next to the power that you can pretend means something.
Let me be more clear: how you build powers using FUDGE rules?
Quote from: DarcyDettmann;905590Let me be more clear: how you build powers using FUDGE rules?
Make them skills.
Quote from: DarcyDettmann;905590Let me be more clear: how you build powers using FUDGE rules?
.
Check the Psionic Powers rules in the Fudge SRD (pg. 89 in the 2005 PDF). It is a pretty good model. It leaves you a lot work to do to make into a complete, full fleshed out superhero game.
Alternatively take ICONS as a basis and adapt it to Fudge. ICONS started off as Steve Kenson conversion notes from TSR's Marvel Super Heroes to Fudge (he called it the Superlative System) so you are practically there.
There was back in the day a homebrew Fudge supers system called World of Wonder doing the rounds on the Internet, but I would not recommend it.
Quote from: daniel_ream;905515Your definition of storygame seems to mutate based on what you happen to like, rather than the other way around. But whatever, I'm not arguing with a cartoon.
Nonsense. My definition has always been the same. There are RPGs that I absolutely do not like but that I readily acknowledge are RPGs.
Quote from: DarcyDettmann;905590Let me be more clear: how you build powers using FUDGE rules?
Look at ICONS. It's a FATE/FUDGE game, with powers. Use it as your landmark. Hell, if you're doing supers-style powers, you will probably find all you need right there.
Quote from: estar;809621Hack and Slash (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/571/Digital-Alchemy/subcategory/1546_6440/HacknSlash)
Short, simple, and to the point. Has all the Fudge essentials in it. And you are already familiar with the genre as a bonus.
Is
Hack-N-Slash the
Five Point Fudge version of Fudge?
Quote from: Jeffrywith1e;935720Is Hack-N-Slash the Five Point Fudge version of Fudge?
No it is a standalone minimalist fantasy RPG using Fudge.
Never liked the 4d3-8 mechanic, feel the same bell curve game feel can be achieved with 2D6, 2D10 or 3D6. Fudge is really a dice-pool system (success on +1 / failure on -1) that has decided to use special dice. Also Fudge isn't a game so much as a dice mechanic with some examples how to use it. A very, very thin one at that. Call me underwhelmed. That combined with ease of play requiring special dice and a fair number of them, that I can't see using for any other game, why would I run a game of Fudge?
Since the success of Fate getting Fudge is is a non-issue.
Quote from: estar;935817Since the success of Fate getting Fudge is is a non-issue.
I am a bit irritated that those got renamed "FATE dice" - that would be as if polyhedrons got renamed, "Savage dice" or "Earthdawn dice" or "Cortex dice".
Quote from: Xanther;935806Fudge is really a dice-pool system (success on +1 / failure on -1) that has decided to use special dice.
I thought the defining aspect of a dice pool system was that the (variable) size of the pool defined the ability of the character: Shadowrun, Ghostbusters, World of Darkness, Ironclaw, d6 Star Wars, FFG Star Wars...
FUDGE just uses a 4d3 roll (that is funnily numbered) + skill system, similar to Novus, Masterbook, SLA Industries (all 2d10 + skill), Traveller, Dungeon World (2d6 + skill), Dragon de Poche (3d6 + skill; D&D without d20) ...
Hey, this is extremely relevant to my interests!
First, I'm the mod over at /r/FudgeRPG (http://www.reddit.com/r/FudgeRPG). Like 9/10ths of the posts there are ones that I've written. I'm still hopeful things will pick up.
Second, I finally finished the build of Fudge that I use for my games and put it up on a half-assed webpage, http://www.fudgelite.com. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Quote from: DarcyDettmann;905578I still want to learn how to build Super Powers...:confused:
If you're creative enough, the only real limitation is the lack of meaningful adjectives above Legendary. That's why I came up with the Superhuman modifier that gives +4 to any trait ranked on the Fudge ladder.
So the extended scale looks like this:
Superb Superhuman
Great Superhuman
Good Superhuman
Fair Superhuman
Superb
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible
Combine that with the same sort of rules you might have for Magic or Psionics and you're in business.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;935855....
I thought the defining aspect of a dice pool system was that the (variable) size of the pool defined the ability of the character: Shadowrun, Ghostbusters, World of Darkness, Ironclaw, d6 Star Wars, FFG Star Wars...
FUDGE just uses a 4d3 roll (that is funnily numbered) + skill system, similar to Novus, Masterbook, SLA Industries (all 2d10 + skill), Traveller, Dungeon World (2d6 + skill), Dragon de Poche (3d6 + skill; D&D without d20) ...
You would think so but I look at the dice and how they are used, you have +1, 0, -1 or success, null, fail. I call dice pool anything that doesn't really use the numbers on dice, but uses them to simply count success or failures. It's just a fixed dice pool with variable bonuses, ones that can overwhelm the random range, so that means you have a limited dynamic range for character improvement (an issue shared with many 2d6 systems, but even worse for 4d3-8). I know that may not be the proper definition and not sure if Fudge allows you to allocate success to different actions as a dice pool can.
If they were really going for the non-linear aspect that can be provided by 3d4, 2d6, 2d10, 3d6 etc. why not use that? Fudge to me is like a crippled dice pool or overly gimmicky non-linear dice mechanic with bad dynamic range. Which is really not a game, just some concepts about modifiers (and lists of potential names for them) and how you stack them. I've played in homebrews like this, they are great for a couple games around the sweet spot of the bell curve but soon, as the modifiers and difficult dominate the outcome, you mist things are way too easy or way too hard, with little in the middle as that sweet spot range is very narrow. Maybe people have been able to make it work for campaigns, more power to 'em, I just don't see Fudge as anything special.
Quote from: Xanther;935881You would think so but I look at the dice and how they are used, you have +1, 0, -1 or success, null, fail. I call dice pool anything that doesn't really use the numbers on dice, but uses them to simply count success or failures. It's just a fixed dice pool with variable bonuses, ones that can overwhelm the random range, so that means you have a limited dynamic range for character improvement (an issue shared with many 2d6 systems, but even worse for 4d3-8). I know that may not be the proper definition and not sure if Fudge allows you to allocate success to different actions as a dice pool can.
Good god, you are overthinking it. It is a system of using four dice to generate a result from -4 to +4. You don't look at each dice separately, like with 2d6, or 3d6, you roll the dice and total the four up to find the result. It not a freaking dice pool where each dice is compared to a level of success.
To put it another way, a fudge dice is a d6 with two faces labeled as -1, two with 0, and two with +1. Finally the adjective system is just a convention. You can just treat them as number with Mediocre as 0, Fair as 1. If the rules call for a Great result, you can treat it like you need to roll a 3 or higher. You roll 4dF and add in the relevant skill. So if you are good at Pistols you can treat that as having +2 skill.
The reason that the adjective system is used because of it free-form nature it provide a natural way of reading the results and defining skills. I personally use the numeric approach as nobody wants to memorize the adjective scale.
Anyway people can read my attempt at crafting a Fudge RPG by using this link.
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip
Again the major problem with Fudge is that +1 provide a radical alteration in the chance of success. The reason for this is that shape of the bell curve of 4dF has a sharp slope compared to 2d6, or 3d6. This causes a problem in that you can't have fine graduations in advancement.
Quote from: Xanther;935881If they were really going for the non-linear aspect that can be provided by 3d4, 2d6, 2d10, 3d6 etc. why not use that? Fudge to me is like a crippled dice pool or overly gimmicky non-linear dice mechanic with bad dynamic range. Which is really not a game, just some concepts about modifiers (and lists of potential names for them) and how you stack them. I've played in homebrews like this, they are great for a couple games around the sweet spot of the bell curve but soon, as the modifiers and difficult dominate the outcome, you mist things are way too easy or way too hard, with little in the middle as that sweet spot range is very narrow. Maybe people have been able to make it work for campaigns, more power to 'em, I just don't see Fudge as anything special.
You can read what the author had to say on the topic.
http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fud-des.html
And he has a whole section on the development of the Fudge Dice
I'd would not have called Fudge 4dF rolls a "dice pool", but then again "dice pool" is just one of those terms I picked up along the way contextually without ever having seen it defined so one can often miss nuances of meaning. I don't who coined the term or whether the is an official definition anywhere. Language is funny that way.
I do agree the Fudge dice restrict the level of granularity. You can't really have a whole bunch of +1 modifiers, not ideal for high crunch or zero to hero style gaming.
I would not claim that is necessarily a feature, but that suits. It keeps gameplay fast and from a design point of view the lack of granularity I find it focuses the mind. You can't just slap on another bonus for every different circumstance or detail, you either learn to let go of something (possibly the most difficult/important design choice of all) or find a more creative solution.
But it's horses for courses. I love my Fudge dice, but I accept it is a rather specific tool.
I found Fudge to be good in theory, but bland in practice. I like a bit of system chrome and a few fiddly bits. Sure you can put color into Fudge but then a lot of games come with the color in-built.