[RPG]: Fudge 10th Anniversary Edition, reviewed by Yamo (3/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11442.phtml

Will Mistretta's Summary:

A new hardcover milestone for one of the hobby's most unique games. Highly recommended.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Dan Davenport]

Does this edition offer any suggestions for linking what would normally be considered "attributes" and "skills"?

Great review, BTW!

[Yamo]

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

Does this edition offer any suggestions for linking what would normally be considered "attributes" and "skills"?

Great review, BTW!

Only the same suggestion that's always been in Fudge: If a character doesn't have any levels in a skill, having an applicable attribute at a high level can allow him to use that skill at Mediocre level instead of Poor as a default.

Still, it's easy enough to categorize the skills in your campaign into categories based on attributes and then just say "attribute < Mediocre = -1 to associated skills, attribute > Good = +1 to associated skills."

Personally, I wouldn't allow attributes to add or subtract more than +1/-1 to a skill check. A +2/-2 modifier is a massive, massive boost or hurdle in Fudge. The exception would be in an extremely epic game where the PCs are regularly expected to achieve Legendary-level results and be able to overcome some extremely hefty penalties.

In a game where I wanted attributes to be extremely important, I'd probably just leave out skills and base all rolls on attributes, kinda like BESM used to do before the skill system was added in 2nd Edition.

Thanks!

I tend to do the opposite: represent stats as skills, like Castle Falkenstein did. But that's the beauty of Fudge

[dysjunct]

A new hardcover milestone for one of the hobby's most unique games.

Unique = one of a kind.

No such thing as "most unique," "really unique," etc. It's either one-of-a-kind or it's not.

Great review though. Glad to see FUDGE has made it this far.

[Yamo]

No such thing as "most unique," "really unique," etc. It's either one-of-a-kind or it's not.

Well, to be prefectly technical, there's nothing to stop one from breaking an RPG game down into its various components and then assessing the unique qualities of each one to arrive at an overall degree of collective "uniqueness."

But it doesn't really matter that much.

[BigJackBrass]

One slightly odd thing about the anniversary edition is the lack of any sort of author or editor introduction. The previous edition had one, yet here there is no discussion of what Fudge is, has been or was intended to be, and nothing on how this delightfully different game came to pass. Admittedly such things can be found on the 'net, but given how pointless the index turned out to be I think I'd rather have read an introduction than have the space turned over to a list of directionless numbers.

[Yamo]

Now that you mention it, that is odd. Not the sort of thing that I think really hurts the book's utility, but odd nonetheless.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Originally Posted by BigJackBrass

One slightly odd thing about the anniversary edition is the lack of any sort of author or editor introduction.

This is something I'm a stickler for; not so much as a consumer, but as a professional. Author introductions serve two important purposes in my opinion:

1) They let the reader know exactly what to expect in the pages ahead, at least in a broad sense. This is even more important for those not already familiar with the product (obviously).

2) They humanize the product. I view them as an opportunity for the writer/designer/editor to say their piece to the reader on a personal level before delving into the thick of things.

[jcfiala]

That sounds really interesting. Thanks for the review.

I've never picked up a copy of Fudge before, although I have played it. Now I'm considering picking up a copy - it sounds like a fine chance to get a good treatment of the system and the games you can derive from it.