The more that I play games using the Fudge system the more I enjoy what Fudge truly is: an RPG toolkit.
With Fudge I can cobble together anything and see how different rules work in actual play. The more I play with the rules of Fudge the more that I realize that I am enjoying an objective style of play more than a subjective style of play.
Dare I say it? I enjoy Fudge more when I use attributes and tie certain skills directly to those attributes. I know, I know – this is a blasphemy to some, but I must bear my soul here. An objective play style with Fudge is fun!
What I have been doing with my game design is looking at the “taboos” of Fudge and challenging them. Now to be clear there are no taboos in Fudge, but some people believe that the subjective style of play with a minimalist approach is more in-line with the original intent of the system’s design. The creator of Fudge Steffan O’Sullivan has made it clear how he prefers to play Fudge, and often it seems that the purist approach to Fudge is to play games according to Steffan’s preferences.
Yet Steffan has also made it clear that what he likes in his Fudge games is not the only way to play Fudge. You can use the Fudge core mechanics however you like, and you can throw out or add in rules however you please. Lately the rules that I have been using are very objective and they have increased my enjoyment of the game.
For example, I am now adding two skills derived from attributes to my game: Dodge and Block. These are combat skills for defensive purposes. Dodge is derived from the Perception and Reflexes attributes, and Block is derived from the Strength and Reflexes attributes. These two skills have helped me to streamline combat while at the same time maintaining a highly tactical feel within my games. For some that might not be a big deal, but for me it really makes a difference to the speed of the game and the general feel of play.
And this objective style of play has helped me to devise a new way to play Fudge that is currently in development. Now I do not believe that my way of playing Fudge is better than another person’s style, but I will say without a doubt that it is different and that I am enjoying the novelty of this new approach a great deal. I am even preparing a prototype to show to publishers.
Again, this is all thanks to the fact that the Fudge system is an RPG toolkit and not an RPG game. The flexibility that Fudge offers makes tinkering like this possible. Whereas there are many supplements and settings for other systems, Fudge is the one mechanic that I know of that is used to create whole game systems with and not just a re-skinning of a previously published product.
I am interested to hear what others are doing with their Fudge games. Subjective? Objective? Why one over the other? Please share your comments below. Later!
5 Comments
Personally, I like the structure of an objective character creation system, because working within a framework helps me focus on what I want, instead of having a wide-open thing where the sky’s the limit, but then I don’t know where to start.
However, my skill lists are inspired by the Hero System in this way: I like them to be effects driven. A character can take a Fight skill, but then define what “fight” means, be it street fighting, kung fu, capoera, swordplay or whatever. They still have the framework, but it allows them to make whatever characters they want.
On the other hand, if the objective system falls short on their expectations, I’ll allow some subjective tweaking. After all, rules are really only guidelines, and it’s the fun that matters, right?
Mike Conway
Heroes of Oz RPG
Mikelo – Interesting, because I look at the Hero skills system as still being objective. There is a fighting skill, and no matter what that skill will be used for hand-to-hand combat. Now you might describe it differently from character to character, such as kung-fu or street fighting, but the core skill and mechanic are still the same.
With a subjective system there really is no pre-defined skill of fighting, nor kung-fu or street fighting. The skill really does not exist in the game until you have a player decide that “I want my character to be a fighter.”
That to me is the difference between a subjective and an objective system. With subjective systems you can create new skills, attributes, gifts, and faults all on the fly to meet a character concept. With an objective system you need to design the components first, and then the character concept has to be shaped from that limited selection.
A good objective system will have lots of options so that character creation does not feel limited, but at the same time all of the bits and pieces have been designed to work together. A subjective system has no limits on the options for character creation, but there is no guarantee that the components will work together. Plus with subjective systems you need a higher level of cooperation between the players because two players might have different concepts for the same trait.
[disclaimer: I am ridiculously tired after G-Fest yesterday, but compelled to respond]
Fudge is fluid rather than fractal, and that’s part of it’s strength (the other virtue lies in it’s simplicity and abeyance of mathematical schemes in favor of plain language – much akin to literate programming in an agile environment). Even within an objective system, qualities can be defined and redefined by the players on the fly. The list of skills that could be found in an objective Fudge RPG could simply be the starting point of a subjective description of a character. The key factor tying these things to the core mechanic is the idea of the Ladder of adjectives.
It’s possible to play a highly subjective game within an objective framework through omission. The reverse is not always possible – it’s hard to make a vanilla narrativist structure objective in the same way D&D4 is objective. As such, objective Fudge lends itself more to certain styles of game than others – I’d not run “Get The Girl” diceless with my usual train-game krewe, simply in that there would be a desire to focus more on the interactions and history of Scrapepath rather than the action-plot that’s outlined. Fair enough – Fudge as a system is flexible enough to comfortably accommodate both styles and even more than I’ve not thought of. And that’s the fluidity I’m describing.
I believe the dichotomy between objective and subjective is ultimately false in practice – comparators will be attached to various words and phrases almost at will, with interpretation and judgement coming from GM and players both. The chief difference is how open-ended the skills list is in the “objective game,” with the secondary quality of having smaller lists describe Traits in a more subjective manner – Crafts is more open to interpretation and application than Underwater Basketweaving, for example. The choice of skills and level of detail is shared between GM and players as a function of describing/designing the game they wish to play – even the act of choosing someone else’s ideas is a design choice (feature not bug).
Right now, I’m finding myself drawn to having players answer questions about the character they have in mind rather than handing them a shopping list of Skills. For example, using AD&D’s 9-alignment system, what would your character’s alignment be? Give me 3 things that are “walking the line” of the alignment, 2 key practices or beliefs that illustrate how relates to the worlds, and one “absolute inviolable” that violation would revoke any allegiance to this creed/society. I’m asking 7 elements, structured into 4 groups (Label, Praxis A, Code B, Fundament C). These are objective in that they have a fixed quantity and possible value that can be assigned to any of these elements (A=Fair, B=Good, C=Superb), yet the actual values of ABC are subjectively described by the player in response to an objective set of questions.
[I need to sleep and have dreams of Kaiju now.]
Now, since I made an objective system for Now Playing and The Unexplained, it’s pretty obvious that I like an objective system…as long as the rules don’t get heavy.
But, I have to admit that I like playing at least somewhat subjectively at times. I’ve had new players join my games and I just hand them an empty character sheet, have them put down a name and occupation, and then we fill in the rest as they use it. For instance, the first time he shoots a gun is when we all decide what he should have for a Gun skill, given who his character is.
carnivore – Thanks! I know what you mean. Sometimes a subjective game can make it very easy to introduce Fudge to newcomers.
Sidenote: I have to pick up Now Playing. It has been on my list of games to acquire for far too long now.
Keith – I agree that there is no dichotomy, and I was not suggesting that there was such a thing. Objective and subjective are merely the extreme endpoints of a very long line. A game may favor one over the other, but one does not exclude the existence of the other from a game.