Am I crazy or has this changed again?  I swear originally Mediocre was removed, but now it appears to back and Terrible is gone.

MattyHelms wrote:

Am I crazy or has this changed again?  I swear originally Mediocre was removed, but now it appears to back and Terrible is gone.

No, you're not crazy. I just looked again and sure enough. I actually like this. The jump, for me, was too big between Poor and Fair.

I tried that for Oz, and I kept not using Poor, even though the character stats called for having a level below Fair. There must be a mental thing there. I just replaced Mediocre and Poor with So-So and Awful. Terrible is still there, but it's a result instead of a buyable character level.

Also, to update from earlier in this thread, I'm not using Average after all. It's Fair and that's that.

Well, me being crazy and VG Fudge changing are not mutually exclusive, but good to know.  I've never been a big fan of the word "mediocre;" it means "low average" to me. With that interpretation, I'm left with one negative adjective in the ladder.  I did like having Poor and Terrible - that you can do poorly or terribly is more intuitive to me than you can do a mediocre job or a poor job.

I get the hangups about average - sounds like Fair is the way to go.

I actually quite like mediocre, and I like having it on the ladder. I've also never been a big fan of average as an adjective, so it being gone works for me. That said: I'm probably sticking to the old ladder, for a few reasons. The symmetry around Fair appeals to me, I use legendary, and I favor 3dF instead of 4dF, which makes the good-superb interaction a non issue in my case. Plus, I tend to use the lower end of the ladder really, really heavily, so more upper space isn't that helpful. With that said, if I feel like running something a bit higher powered, where more upper space is useful, I'm probably going to steal the new ladder.

Congrats, you're the first person to notice!  I changed it last year sometime - probably in the summer.  I found I simply missed Mediocre too much.  It was mental attributes that did it: sometimes that's just exactly the right word to describe someone's mental capacity.  Not that I work with anyone like that or anything ...

I ran a game with the new VG Musketeer characters last month (with Mediocre, not Terrible).  Two players were new to Fudge, but three of them have been in multiple games of mine over the years.  This was the first time they'd seen the VG characters - they didn't even notice!  So much for my fears people would be disappointed or outraged.  They just wanted to play.  So ultimately, I don't think it matters what ladder you use - just play.

If anyone is interested, I wrote up a session report at http://rpggeek.com/thread/966227/fudge- … eens-honor .

I humbly accept my No Prize!  The mention of VG Fudge on your main Fudge page still references losing "mediocre," so someone would have stumbled upon it eventually.

Sitting and staring at the two lists, I'm starting to see that using Mediocre and Poor creates a nicer progression.  I'll have to give it a shot.

This may be a little off the main topic,  but I am using a variant of Steffan O'Sullivan's 3d6 roll under system for my online Star Trek game.

The only differences are that I just call for 2d6 roll under, and some of my attributes are a little different.  But just wanted to express my gratitude to Steffan for FUDGE in general, and the 3d6 version.  We had a great night of play using the system.  My players commented that the system really let us focus on telling the story.

Thanks for the kind words, Teaman!  Enjoy the game!

What struck me about FUDGE was that it was the first game I read that really allowed the GM to make it whatever they wanted.  Even folks who don't play FUDGE can learn a lot about system design from FUDGE.

Also, as I get older, I just don't have the time/desire to keep learning new rulesets.  I bet I'm not the only aging gamer in the room.

teaman wrote:

I bet I'm not the only aging gamer in the room.

That's a pretty safe bet. :-)