Fudge: Digging Deeper for more Detailed Descriptions

One of the things I like most about Fudge is just how much information you can get from a single opposed roll. Using the Simultaneous Exchange rules, a single opposed roll tells you who won their action and how well they performed their action. While most Fudge-based games pay a lot of attention to relative degrees of success and failure, I think it's easy to forget to include the actual rolls themselves when imagining "what happens".

For example, a barbarian is fighting a dagger-wielding cultist, and the barbarian wins the Exchange with 5 Successes. In Blood, Sweat & Steel, that is a Critical Wound, which means the cultist will now have a -1 penalty until the wound heals, which can last for days, even weeks. Knowing the type of wound the cultist receives really helps to visualize what happened. But what if you also consider the original rolls?

5 points of damage is a good bit of information, but the rolls that determined who hit whom and how badly can give us even more information. Here are a couple of scenarios to explain what I mean. In both examples, the barbarian hits the cultist for 5 points of damage, but the way in which we got the 5 points of damage can be visualized very differently.

For the purposes of example, the barbarian has a Great [+2] Melee Weapons Skill, and the Concentration Talent, "By this Blade, I Rule!", raising his Melee Weapons Skill to Superb [+3] when fighting with a sword. The cultist has a Fair [0] Melee Weapons Skill.

Scenario 1

The barbarian rolls Great [+2], for a total of Beyond Legendary [+5], and the cultist rolls Fair [0], for a Total of Fair [0].

Scenario 2

The barbarian rolls Fair [0] for a Total of Superb [+3], and the cultist rolls Poor [-2], for a Total of Poor [-2].

What's the difference?

In the first scenario, the barbarian rolled really well while the cultist did nothing extraordinary. When describing the outcome, I would put a lot of emphasis on the actions of the barbarian.

"As the cultist steps towards the barbarian, brandishing his blade, the barbarian reacts like a coiled snake, leaping towards the cultist before he can even react. The cultist's eye grow wide as the barbarian's blade slashes him in the chest. The cultist drops to one knee, clutching his chest in pain."

In the second scenario, the barbarian had an average roll, but the cultist rolled very poorly. When describing this outcome, I would put the emphasis on the actions of the cultist.

"The cultist seems to quickly realize the obvious mismatch he has found himself in with the barbarian. Out of sheer fear and desperation, the cultist clumsily thrusts forward with his dagger, hoping that his gods will guide his hand to the barbarian's heart, but he stumbles as his feet shuffle forward. . The barbarian easily sidesteps the cultists' feeble attack, and takes advantage of the opening, slashing the cultist's stomach and sending him to his knees"

When you want to make more vivid and interesting descriptions, I think it's important to take advantage of as much information as possible. Just look at what can be used to help describe the action:

• The skill level of the barbarian
• The skill level of the cultist
• the barbarian is especially good when fighting with a sword
• The barbarian's skill level is 3 levels higher than the cultist (huge advantage)

In addition to all of this, there are other things that can be taken into consideration when describing a scenario, such as:

• Situational modifiers, such as Superior Weapon, Armor, Position and Numbers
• Situational conditions, such as slippery footing, heavy fog or a downpour
• Combat Stances (Aggressive, Cautious, Full Defense)
• Other elements that are taking place within the Scene that could add to descriptions

I think the best way for me to use character traits, modifiers and roll results is to remind myself that they aren't just numbers and stats. They are numbers and stats that are in play for a reason, and by using that information, I can create more vivid and interesting descriptions.

It's also worth nothing that in BS&S, the winner of the Exchange gets to describe the outcome. If the GM does a good job of including the various elements and variables that went into the outcome in their descriptions, it should encourage players to do the same.

I must especially remind myself of this when I'm running play tests, because I do a horrible job of being descriptive when I'm in "play test" mode. In fact, I believe that writing this post is a way to remind myself to use this approach whenever I'm running a game. I find myself engaging in too much analysis when I'm running a play test as opposed to just playing the game. One way in which to fix this is to just start recording our sessions and playing the game, saving the analysis for later.

I am hereby swearing an oath to get my focus back on better roleplaying and description and to stop worrying about game analysis during the game.

Getting More out of the Fudge Ladder

I will readily admit that one of the things that first drew me to Fudge was the Ladder. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Ladder is a set of adjectives used to describe the various outcome possibilities in Fudge. Fudge dice have a range of outcomes from -4 to +4. Fudge uses an adjective to describe each possible outcome, like this:

Fudge Result = Ladder Adjective

+4 = Legendary

+3 = Superb

+2 = Great

+1 = Good

  0 = Fair

-1 = Mediocre

-2 = Poor

-3 = Terrible

-4 = Abysmal

What drew me to this idea was the concept of using words to describe things instead of numbers. After playing D&D 3.5 for 5 years, I think I was ready for a game where the mechanics weren't so prevalent in play. Using words to describe outcomes instead of numbers seemed like a great way to reduce "metaspeak"; using game jargon during roleplaying.

Fudge primarily uses the Ladder to describe Attribute levels, Skill levels, and outcomes. I thought it might be interesting to try and implement the Ladder in more ways. My hope is that using the Ladder more will both make the Ladder easier to remember, and make the game easier to play. Just to be clear, there are many people who dislike the Ladder concept and play Fudge without it. It's not for everyone. But for those who like the Ladder, it makes sense to me to try and use it as much as possible. By applying the Ladder to more aspects of the game, I think it will give the game a better overall foundation, making elements in the game more relatable while also making the game easier to learn and play.

In addition to using the Ladder for Attributes, Skills and outcomes, I have also incorporated it into a few other areas as well.

Scale

In Fudge, Scale primarily refers to the differences in strength and mass, although some groups also use Scale for speed or strength without mass. The general idea is that, the bigger and stronger it is, the easier it is for smaller creatures to hit it, the harder it is for the larger creature to hit the smaller creature, the more damage the larger/stronger creature can deliver, while being able to absorb more damage it receives due to being bigger/stronger.

I find Scale to be a brilliant, but very crunchy and overly complicated part of the Fudge rules. The idea is that each step in Scale is 1.5 times higher or lower than the previous step. Using Scale effectively in Fudge requires tables and math, so I've always found it difficult to use during play.

My idea was to apply the concept of Scale to the Fudge Ladder in order to make it quicker and easier to use in play. While I was reading about how other games handle size and mass differences, it occurred to me that a certain, popular RPG has 9 different sizes in it. What a coincidence! Fudge has 9 levels from Legendary [+4] to Abysmal [-4]! By applying the same concept while tweaking the numbers, I came up with this table to represent Scale in Blood, Sweat & Steel.

Table 1: Size/Mass Scale Table

Size Category	Height/Length	Weight
Legendary [+4]	64’ or more	125 tons +
Superb [+3]	32’-64’	16-125 tons
Great [+2]	16’-32’	2-16 tons
Good [+1]	8’-16’	500 lbs – 2 tons
Fair [0]	4’-8’	60-500 lbs.
Mediocre [-1]	2’-4’	8-60 lbs.
Poor [-2]	1’-2’	1-8 lbs.
Terrible [-3]	6”-1’	2 oz. – 1 lb.
Abysmal [-4]	Less than 6”	Less than 2 oz.

Using this table, it's very quick and easy to determine any role size/mass has in a particular situation.  For example Grognor the Barbarian is fighting a dire ape. The dire ape is a Good [+1] sized creature. Right away, this tells me that the dire ape needs a minimum of Mediocre [-1] to hit Grognor (the default is normally Poor [-2], the dire ape will do an additional point of damage if it hits Grognor, and that Grognor will do one less point of damage if he strikes the dire ape.

Trade and Money

One of the things I've never much cared for in RPG's is accounting and bookkeeping. While finding treasure and buying exotic weapons and armor can be a lot of fun, keeping track of every copper, silver and gold coin was never much fun for me. Fortunately, I came across an article in the sadly now defunct, "Fudge Factor" by Duke York,entitled, "Abstract Funds". Duke's idea was to take the entire concept of buying, selling and trading and make it more of an abstract part of the game. Rather than keep track of every coin and bauble, you could assign a value to both liquid and fixed assets, using the Fudge Ladder. I fell in love with this concept at first read. I had to make a few changes in order to make it fit my game.

One of my design goals was to avoid making a game about acquisition. I've always felt that sword & sorcery fiction heroes relied on their skill on wits, not on their particular choice of armor and weapons. It never mattered whether Conan had a giant ax or a turkey leg, he was still going to destroy you. Another popular trope of many sword & sorcery tales is that entire fortunes are gained and lost overnight. Accumulating wealth always seemed to be a much easier task than holding onto it.

This system uses the Fudge Ladder and an abstract value system to make the buying, selling and trading that occurs in the game to be much more simple, and quick. Once you have the table, and you know 3 rules, you can make any kind of transaction you like in a fantasy game.

First, the Abstract Value Ladder:

Ladder	Silver coins
+4 (Legendary)	11001-33000
+3 (Superb)	3651-11000
+2 (Great)	1201-3650
+1 (Good)	401-1200
0 (Fair)	151-400
-1 (Mediocre)	51-150
-2 (Poor)	16-50
-3 (Terrible)	6-15
-4 (Abysmal)	1-5

Use the following 3 rules to handle any type of transaction:

1. If the value of the item is higher than your available cash on hand, and you don't have a similarly priced item to trade, it's impossible to buy it.

Grognor wants to buy a sword, but the Sword is at a Good [+1] value and his bag of coins only has a Fair [0] value, so he doesn't have enough money to buy the sword.

2. If the value of the thing you want to buy is the same as the amount of money you have, ytou can buy the thing, and you simply lower your money by one level.

After getting his buddy to pay up on some gambling debt, Grognor now has a Good [+1] amount of coins. The sword costs a Good [+1] amount, so Grognor can now buy the sword, and he lowers the value of his bag of coins from Good [+1] to Fair [0].

3. If the thing you want to buy is of a lower value than your money, you will then make a simple Check against the value of your money, using the value of the thing you want to buy as the modifier to your roll. If the Check is equal to or higher than the value of your money, your money is lowered by one level. If the Check is lower than the value of your money, you buy the item and the value of your money remains the same.

On second thought, Grognor decides to save a little cash to get his armor fixed, so he picks a smaller sword that has a Fair [0] value. Grognor's bag of coins is of Good [+1] value, so he has more than enough. Following rule #3, Grognor will roll 4dF and add that to the value of the sword he wants to purchase, which is Fair [0]. Grognor rolls Mediocre [-1], which is added to the Fair [0] value of the sword, giving him a Total of Medicore [-1]. Grognors Mediocre [-1] Total is less than the Good [+1] value of Grognor's coins, so Grognor buys the sword and his coins remain at Good [+1].

Summoned Entities

One of the things you can do with the Sorcery Skill is summoning supernatural Entities. There are 3 types of Entities which can be summoned; Elementals, Spirits and Demons. Entities have a base power rating represented on the Fudge Ladder, and this base level determines how powerful the demon is. Their power rating determines the baseline for Skills and Attributes, and it also determines how many Qualities, Talents and Supernatural Abilities they have as well.. While I really liked the idea of summoned Entities being unique, I didn't want a system that required the PC statting out an Entity every time they summoned one. So in this system, whenever an Entity needs to make a Check that requires an Attribute or Skill, the GM makes a Fudge roll and adds the base power level of the Demon. In other words, Attributes and Skills are figured out "on the fly". So for example, a sorcerer has summoned a succubus for the purpose of seducing an enemy in order to gain some secret information, but the enemy figures out that he's dealing with a demon, and he attacks the succubus. The succubus now needs to defend itself with the Brawling Skill. This is a Good [+1] level Demon, so the GM rolls 4dF. in this example, the GM rolls Poor [-2], which means the succubus has a Mediocre [-1] Brawling Skill.

Here is the basic table for Entities:

Entity Power Base Difficulty Base Skill/Attribute Level	Summon Base Time	Mental Stress	Number of Qualities	Number of Talents	Number of Special Abilities (Demons)
Poor [-2]	30 Seconds	1	0	0	0
Mediocre [-1]	A Minute	2	0	0	0
Fair [0]	A Few Minutes	3	1	1	1
Good [+1]	15 Minutes	4	1	2	2
Great [+2]	Half an Hour	5	2	3	3
Superb [+3]	An Hour	6	2	4	4
Legendary [+4]	A Few Hours	7	3	5	5

It is my hope that finding more ways in which to use the Fudge Ladder will make the game more cohesive and easier to learn and understand, while helping the game to run more quickly and smoothly at the table.

There are games that use the Fudge Ladder in a variety of ways. Before this game goes to layout, I may even find another way or two to incorporate the Ladder.

Making a Magic System "Feel" Magical

As I've been typing out the specifics on the new sorcery system, I've been thinking about what makes a magic system "feel" magical to the player. In some magic systems, the player just picks a spell, and it works. They know how long it takes to cast it, they know exactly what will happen when its cast, and they know exactly what it's going to do.  For a game where magic is more like science, this is a great approach. But for a sword & sorcery game, I feel that the magic system should actually have a sense of feeling like performing magic to the player. There are 2 components that I believe can make a magic system feel more magical.

The first element that can make a magic system feel more mysterious and magical for the players is instability. Rather than spells just working, there is a difficulty in casting the spell, and success or failure is uncertain. The player must roll the dice to find out whether or not their spell worked as intended or failed, or even worse, backfired. The sorcery system for Blood, Sweat & Steel already has this element in place, and I think this adds greatly to the feeling of wielding uncertain and arcane power. Many magic systems use Difficulty as a way of making a magic system a little less reliable, because it's pretty simple to integrate. Just treat magic like every other skill by assigning a Difficulty to each task being attempted, and you're good to go.

But another element that I believe can make a magic system feel more magical is unpredictability. Beyond instability, which is determining whether or not the spell succeeds or fails, unpredictability adds the idea that the effect may not be exactly what was intended. Unpredictability is a bit more difficult to quantify in a game system, I believe. But I also believe that it's a bit easier to pull off in a system based on a bell-curve system rather than one with a linear system.

This all got me thinking about my sorcery system, which is based largely in part to summoning supernatural Entities (Elementals, Spirits and Demons) to either Control, Bind or Pact with them. In this system, there isn't a spell list. In fact, spellcasters lack the ability to control magical energy themselves, which is why they must instead summon a supernatural Entity to do their bidding. In this sorcery system, the spellcaster gives the Entity a single task, which if successful, the Entity will carry out, and then return to its place of origin.

In the current system, the power level of the Entity determines the Difficulty. So, a Demon of Great [+2] power would have a Difficulty of [+2] to summon.

What if the intended power level of the Entity was actually a baseline? using the example above, if the sorcerer wishes to summon a Demon of Great [+2] power, the GM uses that +2 as a modifier, and then makes a Fudge roll to determine the type of Demon that actually appears. Using this example, I just rolled Good [+1], which means that a Demon of Superb [+3] power actually appears. The upside for the spellcaster is that they have a more powerful demon to work with. But the downside is that a more powerful demon will be harder to Control, Bind or Pact.

In addition to adding some uncertainty to the system, I think this is also kind of a "rev-limiter" on the magic system. I think it would encourage players to be a little more careful when using their power, and err on the conservative side to lower the risk of summoning something they can't control.

One other thing I really like about this approach is that you can get more impact and use out of sorcery modifiers. In the current system, sorcery modifiers are things with which the spellcaster can use to make their rituals more reliable. Animal and human sacrifice, celestial timing, and places of power could be used to reduce the variability of the ritual, making it more stable and reliable.

Of course, the obvious downside is that this would make for a more complex system, and it would add some rolling to the process. I think the trade-off could be worth it, assuming it can be constructed in a way that maintains an intuitive system.

There is the risk that this approach might feel too unpredictable to be fun to use in play for some players. I'm going to spend some time working out the math on this and see how stark the difference would really be.

What are some other magic systems with unpredictability baked into the mechanics?

"Figuring Out What Happens", Streamlining Outcomes

I've been putting a lot of thought lately into what exactly makes my game different from other Fudge-based RPG's. There are some obvious things, such as the way Fudge Points work, the replacement of Gifts/Faults with Qualities, the combat rules, and the addition of Talents and the magic system. None of these differences are revolutionary or groundbreaking, and in fact, most of them are inspired in part by other game systems. But one of the biggest differences I have been attempting to make has been making an objective Fudge rules set maintain the relative simplicity and intuitiveness of Fudge's roots.

At its core, Fudge is a pretty simple system. However, there are some elements, such as Scale, certain combat rules and armor/weapon stats that can make the game bit more difficult to adjudicate and learn to play. Beyond that, standard Fudge doesn't tell you much about "what happens" after the modifiers are sorted out and the dice are rolled. One of the things I love about Fudge is its use of relative success and failure, but there aren't really any guidelines for what that means, exactly.

One of my primary goals for this game is to make it easy enough to learn that it will encourage inexperienced or less experienced players who like the Sword & Sorcery genre to pick it up and try it out. To that end, I've been trying to find ways to explain how to play and manage the game with some easy-to-remember guidelines.

What I've devised is a simple table that shows "what happens" with both unopposed and opposed actions. Again, I don't believe this to be entirely revolutionary in approach, but I haven't found a Fudge-based game with anything exactly like this.

I've combined the possible outcomes with a descriptive way to resolve the action with the hopes that it will make it quicker and easier for GM's and players to discern "what happens" in a given situation.

Here is the table I've created to lay it out:

Unopposed	Opposed	Outcome	Result
5+ Successes	8+ Successes	Overwhelming Success	“Yes, and…and…”
3-4 Successes	6-7 Successes	Major Success	“Yes, and…..”
1-2 Successes	3-5 Successes	Success	“Yes…..”
Tie	1-2 Successes	Minimal Success	“Yes, but…..”
1-2 Failures	3-5 Failures	Failure	“No, but…..”
3-4 Failures	6-7 Failures	Major Failure	“No, and…..”
5+ Failures	8+ Failures	Overwhelming Failure	“No, and…and…”

It's not really possible to perfectly line up the outcomes of unopposed and opposed actions due to the way ties generally work. In an unopposed action, ties are considered a "minimal success", but in opposed actions, ties are normally considered a draw.  Here is how the above relates to Wounds and Stress (when using Simultaneous Action Resolution):

Damage/Stress	Type	Result
8+	Traumatic	Taken Out
6-7	Critical	-1/Week
3-5	Serious	-1/Day
1-2	Minor	-1 on next Exchange

I tried to remain as close as possible to the damage/stress levels for combat and social conflict. This has the nice side-effect of making it easier for groups to determine the pacing of a given scenario; whether to use scene-based resolution or simultaneous action resolution. Using this setup, the results remain congruent. For example, this is how it relates to Wounds during combat:

Minor Wound: "Yes, you have hit your opponent, but... you only managed to affect your opponent for the next Exchange."

Serious Wound: "Yes, you have managed to affect your opponent for the entire fight."

Critical Wound: "Yes, and...your opponent will be affected long after the fight."

Traumatic Wound: "Yes, and...your opponent will be affected long after the fight, and...they have effectively been taken out of the fight."

For the result, I wanted to take a conversational approach while still giving a sort of visual reference of the differences in outcomes. Using the "Yes, No, And, But" approach makes it much easier and quicker for me to visualize how to describe "what happens". "Yes" means some sort of success, while "No" means some kind of failure. "And" means something in addition to the success or failure, while "But" means an additional component that is opposed to the success or failure.

As for the "And's" and "But's", I've included several suggestions and examples in the book. That way, GM's and players can pick the ones (or two's, in the case of overwhelming success and failure) that are the best for a given situation.

Some people may notice that I used, "No, but..." for a normal failure. I did this because I dislike outcomes that create a dead end. By adding a "but" after the "no", it means that while the PC failed in what they were attempting to do, but all is not lost.

A classic example is when a thief is picking the lock on an important door, say to a crypt. If the thief simply fails, the players might feel like they're at a dead end. But, if we add a "but" to the failure, we give the group options. Perhaps the fighter leaning on his ax and looking around notices a small footpath leading around to the side of the crypt entrance, suggesting another way in. Perhaps a caretaker wanders up to the group who either possesses or knows the location of the key that will open the crypt. Or perhaps the thief lets out a sigh of frustration, and the puff of air reveals some strange symbols next to the door that were previously obscured by dust, which when deciphered, may open the gate or reveal a hidden key. While the "no" describes failure, the "but" offers an optional way to keep things moving.

Example

(Image by Joanna
Gebka - http://www.deviantart.com/art/Thief-313763930)

As an unopposed example, Tigu the thief is breaking into a sorcerer's tower. She has a rope and grappling hook, which would normally make this an easy task. However, there are guards roaming the grounds surrounding the tower, and it has been raining, making the tower and the rope a bit slick. The GM bases the Difficulty at Poor [-2], adds +1 for the need to move quickly before being seen, and another +1 for the wet and slippery conditions, raising the Difficulty to Fair [0]. Tigu has Good [+1] Thieving Skills, but rolls Medicore [-1], for a Total of Fair [0]. This means that Tigu has tied the Difficulty, which is a "minimal success", or a "yes, but..." outcome.

The GM describes it this way, "Tigu finds the wet conditions and her need to get up the wall quickly to make this more challenging than she originally anticipated. However, with much effort, Tigu makes it to the tower's roof before being spotted by any guards. However, due to everything being wet, and Tigu's arms being a little tired from the climb, she loses her grip on the grappling hook as she removes it from where it was lodged for her ascent, and the grappling hook and rope fall to the ground with a thud."

So, a minimal success is a "good news, bad news" kind of situation. The good news is, Tigu made it safely to the tower roof. The bad news is that she'll have to find another way down and hope that guards don't discover her rope and grappling hook before she finds what she's looking for and slips away into the night.

This example is actually from a game I ran a while back. It actually ended differently, because the player running Tigu spent a Fortune Point to use her Quality, "Cat-like reflexes", to bump her Minimal Success up to a Normal Success. So when I started describing the grappling hook slipping out of her grasp, she quickly said, "but thanks to my "cat-like reflexes", I'm able to grab the end of the grappling hook just before it falls to the ground.

I know I haven't invented a new type of wheel here, but I am very happy to have found a way in which to describe how to make the game easier and hopefully, more fun to play.