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.