Talk:Fudge (role-playing game system)

Open gaming

If any editors familiar with Fudge, and with "open gaming" in general, would like to visit the Talk:Open gaming page and participate in the current discussion, your time and expertise would be greatly appreciated. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

FUDGE name

The name "Fudge" hasn't been an anagram for the last two published versions of the game. I'll be editting things accordingly.E.T.Smith 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed everything but the main title, which still uses the outmoded all-caps version of the name. Would someone with more Wiki-skill than me please see to this?E.T.Smith 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, FUDGE was never an anagram (anagrams are words or phrases made by rearranging the letters of another word or phrase: ie. "A decimal point" - "I'm a dot in place"), FUDGE is an acronym, and technically should be written F.U.D.G.E. but FUDGE like the title can do just fine. If you wanna change it (which I don't see being necessary) use the MOVE command. Cyberia23 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, got the similar words mixed up. The point still stands though, that though the name may once have been an acronym, it no longer is and this article should reflect that. Thank you for showing me how to amend it accordingly.68.39.72.108 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FUDGE was SLUG?

Are we sure about this? I thought they were two different games; there's not a lot of overlap in the rules. 203.113.232.209 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The SLUG that now exists is a recycling of the name, but the project that became Fudge was also originally referred to as SLUG. As I recall, Steffan felt that Fudge suffered from committee-written bloat, and that SLUG (the second) is what Fudge should have been. Or something to that effect. If I can find where he said that, I'll put it in the article, though it's likely in the chunk of Usenet history that's been removed from the Deja Goo archives (including the article where Steffan put Fudge in the public domain and then retracted it, the supposed reason for the de-archival. Which is a whole 'nother can of worms.) 207.178.110.185 02:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnan (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fudge Community Yahoo Group -- okay to link to it in External Links section?

I added a link to the Fudge Guide Wiki to the "external links" section of the Fudge rpg wikipedia entry, since the Fudge Guide has become an incredible resource for anyone interested in the Fudge RPG.

I was going to add a link to the new Fudge Community Yahoo Group (the first email list/community forum hosted & officially supported by Grey Ghost Press, Inc., which I started up a few weeks ago when the original Fudge List mailing list hosted by Carl and Karen Cravens closed down)... but the editing guidelines specifically mentioned that "social networking" pages should be avoided in the External Links section.

I think the new Fudge Community group is a great place to go to learn more about the Fudge game (the message archives are set for public viewing, and members can access files and links and a calendar of Fudge events and all the other Yahoo Group bells and whistles), is it all right to add a link in the "external links" sections? Or is the "no social networking sites" rule a hard-and-fast one?

(new to editing Wikipedia -- wikis daunt and confuse me, don't want to make a mistake, there's a lot of power in editing a wiki entry!)

Adupuis (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link to the Wiki. Given the nature of Fudge I think it is agood idea. But I would not add the yahoogroup. What you can do though is add the yahoogroup to the Fudge Wiki. Anyone interested in Fudge will go to the Wiki and then see it there. Web Warlock (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"which are six-sided, and"

I don't think it's relevant how many sides the dice have; as long as there's an equal number of the three kinds of sides, they're dF. (If anything, they're emulated three sided dice (with an -2 offset.))

Most uninitiated people might assume six-sided, which is fine since that's what most published Fudge dice looks like today.

I was very close to adding "usually" between "are" and "six-sided" but I'd rather just remove that part since it doesn't really add any information on how to play Fudge. Sunnan (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-formatting and Quotes

"Went through and not only found citations for some of the required sections, but also added and re-phrased some of the longer running sentences. Also made links to the Grey Ghost Press wiki page that I will be working in a few." Lucky Foot (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Logo Change

Changed the front logo from the book cover to the official Fudge RPG logo as the book cover may change over time and it won't be a good representation of the system. The Fudge Swoosh Dice logo is the official symbol. Lucky Foot (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable passage

Moving this here from the "Complexity" section:

Another draw to the system is the lack of mathematics in a lot of builds with the game focusing more on the story instead of the arithmetic seen in some games like Wizards of the Coast's Dungeons & Dragons.

This has got nothing to do with "complexity", so it's in the wrong section; there doesn't seem to be a right section. It's unsourced, and reads a lot like someone's personal opinion. It's also not particularly accurate, but seems to be praising (original research or fancruft) the use of verbal adjectives instead of numerical factors, which is already covered much more dispassionately in another section, making this passage redundant. If someone wants to clean this up and replace it in the article, more power to you. But it looks like fan praise, which has no place here. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)