Trait Levels

Fudge quantifies traits, whether skills or attributes, according to nice, English, trait levels:

Terrible < Poor < Mediocre < Fair < Good < Great < Superb

Thus character sheets can make sense to your non-roleplaying Grandmother, and people get more easily into the story.

Fiddling with the Levels

Some people don't think that seven levels is enough and want to increase granularity, and posit solutions such as Thirds or Trait Levels Edge^?. Steffan disagrees. Some consider the number of levels to be a problem primarily because of the range of die results, which CarlCravens rants about in Dice Trait Ranges.

Others add levels on the bottom (Abysmal) and the top (Heroic/Epic, Legendary) to represent extremes. The "Legendary" level holds a special status as being "officially optional". Some just use numbers to extend levels up or down from the Terrible to Superb scale, like Terrible-1 or Superb+2.

Yet another scheme to extend the number of levels is to insert levels into the middle, in order to push the distance between (say) Fair and Superb further apart. A few suggestions include inserting "Pretty Good" between Fair and Good; "Average" between Mediocre and Fair; "plus levels" above each existing level.

(RobKnop prefers Terrible < Poor < Mediocre < Fair < Pretty Good < Good < Very Good < Great < Superb, as it tends to add most of the additional granularity to the "just above average" range where most of the typical skills of typical roleplaying characters will tend to fall. Also, the words qualitatively model a steepening learning curve, where it's not so many steps to go from Terrible to Fair, but it's a lot harder to go from Fair to Great. Of course, Fudge experience rules already have that curve in them, so one might want to think about how that would interact.)

Steffan O'Sullivan has suggested that the problem is psychology; nobody wants to take characters with Medicore or Poor skills, so your "useful" range gets contracted to a fraction of the 7 levels available. You can solve this problem by renaming the 7 levels to:

• Poor, Fair, Pretty Good, Good, Very Good, Great, Superb

Just Fudging It (Extra Trait Levels)

For those Fudge players who only rarely find the need for lower granularity (and aren't afraid of a little mathematical inconsistency), here is another option:

This actually sounds like a lot more work/annoyance than just using Thirds. You can use Thirds for just one trait, or just one particular magic sword, and so on.-- SunnanBriling - 17 Apr 2004

Just fudge it. Invent a new trait level on the spot! To make it easily understood, I would recommend using something like "Very X" or "Nearly X", as in "Very Good" or "Almost Great". When the character makes a roll based on that trait, it appears in-between two standard Fudge trait levels, and the roll is made as usual. No change need be made for any other character.

Example: Waldorf the warrior (with Good sword skill) picks up a magical sword. The GM does not wish for the sword to give a full +1 bonus, so he decides that Waldorf's Good sword skill is temporarily improved to "Almost Great" (or Very Good, or Excellent, or whatever you like--the new name can be used to convey flavour as well). This new trait level appears between Good and Great. Now, when Waldorf makes a 4dF roll, his results will look like this:

+4	Legendary
+3	Legendary
+2	Superb
+1	Great
0	Almost Great
-1	Good
-2	Fair
-3	Mediocre
-4	Poor

Important: Everyone else in the game, including other players, GM, and NPCs, continues to use normal Fudge trait levels. For instance, if Waldorf is competing with another Good warrior, he will beat him on any roll where they both roll the same negative result. If they both roll +1, the result is a tie--they have both achieved a result of Great.

How to compare a new trait level to existing trait levels? Under most circumstances, it should be pretty obvious--a GM who can interpret a result like "Good" should be able to interpret, just as easily, a result like "Very Good". "Very Good" is clearly better than Good, but not as good as Great. The only difficulty that might come up is in figuring Relative Degree. I would suggest treating a success by one "temporary" trait level as a success with an RD of 0. In our above example, if Waldorf was in combat with a Good warrior, and he rolled 0 on 4dF, his "Almost Great" result would be handled as a hit with an RD of 0.

An invented trait level is statistically equivalent to a roll that is padded on the negative end. Almost Great, for example, is the same as a trait level of Good that is padded with another Good level beneath it. The only difference is that a roll of 0 (Almost Great result) for Waldorf will beat a roll of Good--though the GM could call it a tie if it seemed appropriate!

Another example: some people feel that the adjective "Fair" carries a positive connotation rather than a neutral one. Such a Fudge player could decide to add a trait which could be used to describe things like the quality of equipment. A normal piece of equipment might be described as Quality: Average. For this player, the new trait level of Average fits between Mediocre and Fair. A trait level of Average could be used in situational rolls, as well. For instance, if the player wanted to randomly determine the quality of a car, he could roll 4dF, and base the roll on a trait level of Average. Thus, a -1 would give a result of Mediocre, -2, Poor, and so on, whereas a 0 would mean Average quality, a +1, Fair quality, +2, Good, and so on. However, as far as everyone else in the game is concerned, this trait level does not exist! A character with Mediocre skill who rolls a +1 still achieves a result of Fair.

Inventing temporary trait levels will probably only work well if it is used infrequently. If you find yourself needing new trait levels every second roll, you may want to look into some different options!

I would suggest only using this method for extraordinary circumstances. For example, if a Poor archer receives the blessing of a deity, her archery trait might temporarily rise to "Blessed Poor" or something similar.

-- PaulTarussov - 11 Jul 2002

[Note: I hope I have not violated some rule of etiquette by adding this to the middle of the page--it seemed like the best spot. If I have violated etiquette, then I hope someone more knowledgeable can move this text to a more appropriate position. Thanks!]

---

That's a really nifty idea Paul! We should join forces in game design. ;-P There's only one glaring error that I noticed, and it was right at the beginning: enlarging the trait scale will reduce granularity, not increase it! A scale's "graininess" is a function of how statistically likely each trait level is (and not an inverse function as you suggested). I've taken the liberty of correcting the error. :-)

I also disagree on one point: I think that this idea could be applied frequently without a problem in a game. It's a very elegant way of creating optional half-levels.

Finally, as a general rule people post their ideas in chronological order only during the brainstorming phase of TWiki topics. Once the brainstorming is over, the page is typically reformatted to make it look nice, with the contributors' names lumped together at the end.

This page is still in brainstorm mode, therefore I seriously doubt that you've made a faux pas. Or if you have, then so have I!!

-- JonathanBenn - 22 Jul 2002

Jon--

Thanks for the praise and the corrections. The granularity thing is especially embarassing, since I often correct others when they make the same mistake!

I'm all for joining forces in game design--and Twiki sure helps!

-- PaulTarussov - 23 Jul 2002

---

Verbal Description of Fudge traits

"Those with Legendary Strength, for example, are in the 99.9th percentile, and their names can be found in any book of world records." -- FUDGE Rules Version: June, 1995 and exactly the same in Fudge Expanded Edition.

I've been ruminating over this very line in my head in relation to Reputation. Below is the chart I'm playing with, and it might help in the "What does Fair mean?" discussion on the Fudge list.

One way to ask the question is to expand the percentages chart (assuming that the default is Poor). This chart is based on "gut-feeling" and is highly subjective in nature.

Legendary +3: 1 in 1 billion (10^9)
Legendary +2: 1 in 1 million
Legendary: 1 in 1000
Superb: 1 in 50
Great: 1 in 25
Good: 1 in 12
Fair: 1 in 8
Mediocre: 1 in 5
Poor: 3 in 5 
Terrible: 1 in 12
Abysmal: 1 in 1 million

Or, in other words, in a group of (x) people with a particular skill, you can expect to find the following distribution:

5: 1 Fair, 1 Mediocre, 3 Poor
10: 1 Fair, 3 Mediocre, 5 Poor, 1 Terrible
25: 1 Great, 2 Good, 3 Fair, 6 Mediocre, 11 Poor, 2 Terrible
50: 1 Superb, 2 Great, 4 Good, 6 Fair, 11 Mediocre, 22 Poor, 4 Terrible
100: 2 Superb, 4 Great, 8 Good, 12 Fair, 22 Mediocre, 44 Poor, 8 Terrible
1000: 1 Legendary, 19 Superb, 40 Great, 80 Good, 120 Fair, 220 Mediocre, 440 Poor, 80 Terrible

As a side bonus, I posted my draft Reputation Rules in a separate topic.

So, the moment of truth: putting skill levels into words.

• Legendary +3 and above: personification of the skill, the subject of bedtime stories (only one or two throughout history, e.g. Atlas)
• Legendary +2: a living legend, known by laymen, found of a category of the subject (perhaps only a handful throughout history, e.g. Newton)
• Legendary: a leading expert in the field, oft-quoted, known by enthusiasts, founder of a subcategory of the subject (e.g. Martin Luther)
• Superb: a distinguished expert in the field, founder of a useful technique (e.g. Heimlich maneuver)
• Great: an expert, produces advanced material, post-graduate study
• Good: a professional, knows advanced material, bachelor's degree
• Fair: an enthusiast, familiar with intermediate material, high school
• Mediocre: a passing interest, knows the basics, grade school
• Poor: no training or study, knows what everyone knows by osmosis
• Terrible: totally clueless, probably came from a different culture
• Abysmal: so poor as to be a historical curiosity (e.g. "Wrong Way Roger")

In the end, I'm mostly happy with the outcome, and would love feedback.

-- ChuckDurfee - 26 Jul 2002

---

Optional Numbers

I've designed a 100% compatible trait system for Fudge that combines numbers and trait values. The system is designed specifically for diceless roleplaying, but it could be used with dice too.

You'll find it at my own TWiki clone.

-- JonathanBenn - 11 May 2003

Special-Purpose Names

Some players complain that assigning difficulties of "Mediocre" or "Superb" is counter-intuitive. One solution lies in rephrasing things - instead of "the difficulty is Superb", say "it would take a Superb result to succeed."

Or use different adjectives for Skill Levels and Task Difficulties; this has the problem of requiring everyone to memorize two lists of traits and then to corelate them to each other during play.

Skill Level	"Abysmal"	Terrible	Poor	Mediocre	Fair	Good	Great	Superb	Legendary
Number	-4	-3	-2	-1	0	+1	+2	+3	+4
Difficulty/ Eris	Automatic	Easy	Routine	Average	Challenging	Formidable	Staggering	Hopeless	Impossible
Difficulty/ Ian		Trivial	Easy	?	Fair	Difficult	Great	Tough
Difficulty/ Brian	None	Trivial	Pretty Easy	Mundane	Fairly Difficult	Genuine Challenge	Galling	Sublime
Difficulty/ JH		Trivial	Simple	Typical	Tricky	Hard	Very Hard	Formidable
Difficulty/ JD	Effortless	Extremely Easy	Very Easy	Easy	Moderate	Hard	Very Hard	Extremely Hard	Hopeless
Difficulty/ JL		Trivial	Very Easy	Easy	Moderate	Hard	Very Hard	Formidable
Difficulty/ LP			Easy	Simple	Average	Hard	Daunting	Extreme
Quantity		Tiny	Small	Middling?	Fair?	Large	Great	Huge
Expertise/ LP		Zero	Beginner	Amateur	Qualified	Professionnal	Expert	Master

Commentary on Difficulty /Eris

"Automatic", "Hopeless", "Staggering" and "Impossible" are adjectives that depend on how skilled you are. "Difficult" sounds harder than "Fair". "Routine" is generally the bottom of the scale. "Average" should match the middle of the scale, not -1. -- IanKevinMcDonald

Commentary on Difficulty /Ian

Medicore tests give me a problem: how about Light, Facile, or Feasible?

Regardless, these terms are fairly useless without a consensus on what they are.

-- IanKevinMcDonald

Commentary on Difficulty /JH

I think that an Average task should be easier than Fair:

1. Typically, I assume that "Fair" is a professional-calibre skill. A typical programmer is a Fair programmer. A typical chef is a Fair chef.
2. Therefore, most of the tasks that someone runs into in the course of a day must have a difficulty of less than Fair, so that these typical professionals can succeed.
3. An "Average" task would then have to be Mediocre. A task that a reasonable professional would have only a 62% chance of completing is harder than Average.

To me, the adjective in the middle should convey "typical professional skill level", which I don't think "Average" does.

-- JohannHibschman

Commentary on Difficulty /JD

I tend to avoid "Average" because so many people relate it to "Fair." Except for the ends, I use just three descriptors "Hard", "Moderate" and "Easy" modified by "Very" and "Extremely." This seems to work well. At the ends I like "Effortless" and "Hopeless" because they rhyme.

-- JosephDietrich

Commentary on Difficulty /JL

Difficulty /JD is close to what I'd use, but I have a different thought process for getting there:

1. Start with two levels: easy and hard.
2. Add extreme versions of each: trivial and formidable.
3. Insert a level between each: Very Easy, Moderate, and Very Hard

-- JonathanLang

Commentary on Difficulty / Sunnan

I don't like to have a "difficulty chart" memorized, I usually say "You'd need Great strength to open that door", or "It seems Fairly hard to make that jump". I.E. I figure out what result is needed. (I use "Fair" as the required result most of the time, unless there are special conditions.) -- SunnanBriling

---

For people who feel that the 4dF spread is too wide and unpredictable, an option I have considered (but never used) is to add two trait levels. However, unlike other people who have done this, I do not feel that the trait levels should be added to the "middle" of the ladder.

My reasoning is that characters at the extremes (both really good and really bad) should perform more consistently than the people who are in the middle. Adding trait levels to the middle of the ladder (words like "Average", "Pretty Good", etc) means that most characters in the middle of the range will perform very consistently (rarely making it to the extremes), whereas characters in the extremes will never be able to "jump over" that mass of adjectives in the middle (ex: a Terrible PC can never achieve a "Good" result if you add an "Average" level to the trait scale).

Based on that idea, and my own "feeling" of the spacing of the trait levels, I came up with this ladder, which matches the range of 4dF (-4 to +4) to an equal number of adjectives:

Superb
Great
Excellent
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Lousy
Terrible

You will want to keep characters in the "Lousy-Great" (-3 to +3) range. It's also still possible to keep using Abysmal/Legendary for really extreme results.

My feeling is that this ladder produces more of a "realistic" spread with a 4dF roll. However, I have not ever actually tried in a game.

The downside, of course, is that you've got more adjectives to remember. My own mind is not made up on this subject--fiddle with the dice mechanics or the trait levels? I don't know which I prefer, but it's fun to contemplate all possibilities.

-- PaulTarussov - 08 May 2003

Setting aside issues such as which is better, Excellent or Great, you could add one more level between Fair and Superb without harm to the "realism" of the spread; doing so would result in having ten levels covering the range of normal human abilities. If you attach numbers to the levels, you could end up with a "scale of one to ten", a quality rating system which a substantial number of people are already familiar with:

Number	Adjective
11+	Legendary
10	Superb
9
8	Great
7
6	Good
5	Fair
4	Mediocre
3
2	Poor
1	Terrible
0-

(The above was derived by setting Terrible at 1, Fair at 5, and Superb at 10; the positioning of the remaining four adjectives is largely arbitrary, and can be shifted by a level as you see fit.)

Since numbers can be used intuitively to rate these levels, the adjectives become less important, to the point where you don't really need them. Instead of saying "Is my character's Strength Terrible, Poor, Mediocre, Fair, Good, Great, or Superb?" you'd say "On a scale of one to ten, what's my character's Strength?" Task difficulty becomes potentially more intuitive, as "the difficulty is a 6 on a scale of one to ten" is often less counterintuitive than "the difficulty is Good" - although the latter could be rephrased as "the task requires a Good result to succeed".

This approach is a two-edged sword, however: its strength (less dependence on adjectives) is also its weakness (there's a certain elegance to being able to say "my character has Great Swordsmanship").

-- JonathanLang - 12 May 2003

---

As a sidenote, here are gathered translations of the famous 7 levels in other languages... and links to the sites! -- LoicProt - 19 Jun 2003

English	Steffan O'Sullivan	Terrible	Poor	Mediocre	Fair	Good	Great	Superb	Legendary
Español (Spanish)	Santi Martínez "Yago", José Antonio Estarelles, Enrique M. González, Xoota, Rodabilsa	Terrible	Pobre	Mediocre	Normal	Bueno	Grande	Excepcional
Português (Portugese)	Fábio Emilio Costa	Péssimo	Ruim	Medíocre	Mediano	Bom	Ótimo	Soberbo
Deutsch (German)	Stefan Ossenberg, Dev, KrasnyKot & Dogio	Grauenhaft	Armselig	Unterdurchschnittlich	Durchschnittlich	Gut	Großartig	Superb
Italiano (Italian)	Massimiliano Lambertini	Disastroso	Scarso	Mediocre	Discreto	Buono	Ottimo	Superbo
Français (French)	Jean-Michel Got	Lamentable	Mauvais	Médiocre	Moyen	Bon	Très Bon	Excellent	Légendaire
Norwegian	Magnus Lie Hetland	Forferdelig	Dårlig	Middelmådig	Rimelig	Bra	Utmerket	Enestående
Swedish		Usel	Dålig	Medioker	Hyfsad	Bra	Utmärkt	Enastående	Legendarisk
Esperanto	SonjaElenKisa	Terura	Malbona	Modesta	Mezbona	Bona	Bonega	Brila	Legenda

.

---

Here are some other adjectives for additional trait levels:

Transcendent, Surpassing, Exceptional, Wonderful, Excellent, Superior, Meager, Inferior, Bad, Exiguous, Awful, Miserable and Wretched

-- IanBollinger - 25 Jul 2003

---

In my games, I use more "plain language" levels that better reflect spoken English. Instead of Mediocre, I use So-So. Instead of Fair, I have sometimes used Decent.

-- SonjaElenKisa - 16 Jul 2004

---

Related Pages

Super Traits

expanding the Trait scale beyond Superb

Degree Scales

applying Trait-like scales to quantities

Adverb Scales

using Adverbs instead of Adjectives

Reputation Rules

in-game effects of having high traits

Abbreviating Degrees

shorter words

Shifting the Fudge ladder: a Fudge Factor Article

Choosing Natural Adjective Ladders: an article by FredHicks, LeeValentine^?, JohnBMorrow, and IanKevinMcDonald
to top