>From lizard: >Since every character sheet included the 'effect value' of the stat next >to the name, it was pretty easy. Monstrous(75) was better than Amazing >(50). Aunt May's Feeble(2) Endurance compared poorly to healty-but-human >Nick Fury's Excellent(20) endurance. (I might have the numbers wrong, >but you get the idea). Given a small sampling of character sheets, >anyone could piece together the sequence of attributes in short order. Right. Anyone could... *given the numbers*. So essentially, the names were superfluous. While clever, they couldn't generally convey a whole lot by themselves. Fudge's levels don't cover quite the same range though and are able to be more intuitive. With no numbers attached, most people will figure out Great is better than Good, Mediocre is better than Poor, etc. That's one of the prime advantages of Fudge ranks. Their drawback (conversely) is that they don't apply so well when a group covers much more than the typical human range. That's when you need explanations or scale values or what-have-you. Mike Jones -- ----------------------------------------------- The Fudge List FAQ is at http://fudge.phoenyx.net/ ** Don't start deliberately off-topic threads. **