Realism and design systems

[jerich01]

The "it's supposed to be fun" argument is a no-brainer, but also fairly meaningless IMO. Of course it's supposed to be fun to play, but to be honest I think an RPG can only go so far to encourage that - a lot of that is down to the group sitting down around the table. And "fun" is a highly subjective term anyway - a lot of CT fans enjoyed making characters or ships or planets for their own sake as a way to pass the rainy days (and incidentally, I think that MGT should retain that "solo play" aspect - I don't see why the game has to be focussed solely on round-the-table group play). Others didn't enjoy that so much and got their fun out of playing the game with other people. Neither side is right or wrong, and neither side has the right to say that their "fun" is more valid than anyone else's. So "fun" isn't really a good way to constrain game design because it's so subjective - "simplicity" and "ease of use" are a lot more objective. .

Oh if this were only true; but as we live in a world driven by finance it is indeed that elusive, subjective "fun" that does drive game design, be it RPG's or Video Games or whatnot. You are correct that no one side can say their fun is more or less valid but in going behind the scenes as a game desiger I want to insure that as many folks or groups of folks have "fun". Traveller, as you've pointed out, fit the bill for two groups, the social roleplayer and the person who went home and designed things on his own. As this all boils down to business though, I'll reiterate that "fun" is the only way to constrain game design in the end as we game designers would all like to go home and be able to pay our bills, eat pizza, etc... If we didn't we'd give away our "ideal" games for everyone's enjoyment.

Ultimately, what I want to see and what I'm arguing for is as few holes as possible in the design systems (be they ship, character, or star/planet). Whether one knows about the subject enough to spot them or care about them isn't really the issue - the fact is, the hole is still there.

So if I follow this logic then all the aspects of thse games that concern law enforcement, espionage, etc must be changed as the "holes" between how they are presented and the reality of the situation are larger than any issue of star design as present in these threads. Also, how do you know there's a hole? How do I? How does the writer? My guess would be that the writers of RPG's are at best dilletante scientists and are more likely to have spent their time in school studying creative writing or game theory or something else applicable to the broad field of games. If the writers of "hard sci-fi" games are depending on you to point out their holes then we may have discovered a new low-paying side job for you and any other gaming astrophysicist. ::insert cheap grin:: By the way, if this works put in a good word for me; I'll utilize all my powers as former intel person turned Master Chef to make games comepletely realistic in those fields.

The way I see it, there's three things at play here - realism, internal consistency, and sensibility - and all three are important. One could argue that consistency and sensibility are more important than realism, but I think they're more inter-related than people give them credit for. Magic may be unrealistic, internally consistent and sensible (following some kind of logic) but we're talking about a Scifi game here, and Traveller has traditionally always had a "veneer of realism" (as Aramis put it). I think that sense of realism is an essential part of the game (even if in practice it was poorly executed by the designers) - we wouldn't have had books like Scouts, or FF&S or the World Builders Handbook or the more realistic GURPS Traveller books like First In and Far Trader otherwise.

You hit the nail on the head here with one word, "veneer" and you are completely correct. Traveller since day one has tried to sound "realistic and respectable" but it wasn't really - it wasn't intended to BE realistic and respectable; it was intended to be fun and different and do away with as many "fantasy" items as possible. SO the game came out and folks played. Some folks who knew more than others about combat or space travel or world creation created supplemental material and folks like me went out and bought them and incorporated some things and left others out. Frankly as these games come out and folks like you release "corrections" or "improvements" to whichever system I will look, read, and possibly apply. Frankly if someone released a "realistic" star map I'd use it - but if it never existed I would still have just as much fun with the game.

Taking Regina as an example - it's a habitable world around a gas giant. OK, so that means that it has to be tidelocked to the gas giant (like any moon is around a gas giant). That means its effective day length (relative to the sun) is very long (about 1.5 months long in fact) since it's orbiting at 55 radii. That means it's not actually all that habitable after all. So it's wrong to portray it an earthlike habitable world because it can't be if you follow the logic - it's neither realistic nor does it make sense. So it's a problem.

White dwarfs are another example. Traveller generates loads of Close white dwarf companions in binary systems and yet has habitable worlds close to the primary star. But if you have a white dwarf companion in a "Close" orbit, that means that it was once a red giant star that spiralled in toward the primary. There'd be mass exchange, streamers of material thrown everywhere, a lot more heat, and planets would be demolished, roasted, or ejected from the system for that to be the case. There's no way in hell you'd get an earthlike, habitable world sitting in orbit 3 around the primary star after that. (And not only does Regina have this situation but even worse, Guaran (the Hiver homeworld) has it as well - so really the Hivers shouldn't even exist as their system is described). Again, it's neither realistic nor sensible. Again, it's another problem, and a very widespread one.

It's that sort of thing that I want to get rid of in Traveller. These are bugs of the game's stargen rules, not features - they are results that don't make sense and aren't realistic either. The "Ancients did it" excuse only works so many times before you start wondering why the entire universe is full of wacky exceptions and very little is actually as it should be. There may be some degree of internal consistency (which alone means nothing, since the system can be internally consistent while being completely broken), but without realism (closeness to reality) and sensibility ("does it work logically?") to temper it then it's not really a useful system. And I really don't think anyone wants something that can be torn apart logically or runs contrary to what we're familiar with because that would distract from the gameplay with all the awkward questions that result from it.

And that's it, that's all I'm arguing for. I want a game that is as realistic, internally consistent and sensible as possible while also being as simple as possible and straightforward to play (which hopefully will make the game "fun").

I don't want Traveller to be "dumbed down" or over-abstracted or turned into something it's not - if you want a pure gonzo space opera setting then that's not Traveller and it never has been, and I think it's wrong to try to push Traveller in that direction - that's not being "true to Traveller's milieu". I don't think (and have never argued) that people are wrong to want games to be enjoyable, or that they're wrong to not care about realism... I just think it's wrong to over-simplify or reduce or remove the realism in Traveller. Sure, it may have space opera elements but they're tempered by the gritty feel of the setting and the detail level of the design systems it's had, and I think that should be preserved. If you want an "anything goes, throw realism out of the window" setting then you'd be better served by playing another game that has that kind of feel, like Star Wars or Fading Suns or something.

In this you and I are in complete agreement - but then the question becomes why is it the way it is... In the case of star and system generation it was made simple, maybe too simple and folks improved on it; in all the time I was associated with Traveller I never heard anyone say it was trying to be real, merely that it was playable. If you have/had the solution then I'd be happy to look at it (and I did with the doc you posted).

So what you are asking for is a consistent, realistic, workable system that prevents these anomalies. Which, according to you and others here, we never had "out of the box". As you stated in your examples Traveller was never "tempered by the gritty feel of the setting and the detail level of the design systems it's had"; actually you stated it had this level of detail but then specifically with regards to star and system gen you pointed out that it has never had this and it is something you want. I think what you want is possible, I don't necessarily know how to do it but maybe you do.

As none of us has seen these systems for either game version we may be pleasantly surprised. But to sink to a level of bashing the author and or saying that someone is wrong if they don't care about the star gen system, well that too is wrong as is the notion that it MUST be done differently. This wins you no friends and makes one wonder why this game is your game of choice. In the end we know or can at least surmise; you corrected the faults you saw and increased your "fun". ParanoidGamer changed other things and he had fun. Jerich01 changed even other things and he had fun. So how about we see what happens with these systems and the decide and in the meantime let's take a few steps back (which I think we did) and discuss random star generation as what it is, which is useful and fun, and stop bashing Marc Miller or Mongoose Publishing which is pretty useless.

 

[EDG]

As this all boils down to business though, I'll reiterate that "fun" is the only way to constrain game design in the end as we game designers would all like to go home and be able to pay our bills, eat pizza, etc... If we didn't we'd give away our "ideal" games for everyone's enjoyment.

You do realise that most games that are published are the writer's ideal game (especially on the small press side), right? Like all those fantasy heartbreakers that get released by one guy on PDF that purport to "solve all the problems of D&D" or whatever.

The thing about "fun" is that it's completely nebulous and arbitrary - one person's fun is something that another hates. The general aim is to come up with something that works for as many people as possible... the problem with doing this completely wide open playtest is that everyone is yanking the game in a load of different directions because we all have different visions of what Traveller should be. At the end of the day, there's always going to be people who aren't happy with what comes out of the other end. What the designers need to do is decide who it is exactly they're aiming at and what their design goals are (which hopefully will remain true to the original goals of the game) - those are the people that are going to find the game most enjoyable, and everyone else isn't going to enjoy it so much.

So if I follow this logic then all the aspects of thse games that concern law enforcement, espionage, etc must be changed as the "holes" between how they are presented and the reality of the situation are larger than any issue of star design as present in these threads.

I would argue that all aspects have to be presented in that sensible, realistic, and internally consistent way. The corebook is going to have stargen and shipgen and chargen in it, so I'd expect those to be presented that way there. If and when there's a law enforcement or espionage book then I'd expect that it's presented like that too. There's loads of holes in Traveller's economics and political/social structure (e.g. how naval fleets work, what exactly is an "imperial citizen" etc) that have been argued about for decades - GURPS Traveller did a valiant job trying to fix them but ultimately it would still have problems because as a whole the game was full of leaks. If the game is designed from scratch to make sense though, those leaks won't be there.

Also, how do you know there's a hole? How do I? How does the writer?

Same way that anyone does in any situation - by doing some research and following the logic of the situation through to the end. Even fictional things have to have some kind of internal consistency - that's arguably what SF is about anyway, to conjecture about something and follow it through to its ultimate implications.

My guess would be that the writers of RPG's are at best dilletante scientists and are more likely to have spent their time in school studying creative writing or game theory or something else applicable to the broad field of games.

You'll be surprised. RPG writers come from pretty much every walk of life, and most haven't studied anything remotely relevant to gaming. Most of the time RPG writing is something they do on the side.

If the writers of "hard sci-fi" games are depending on you to point out their holes then we may have discovered a new low-paying side job for you and any other gaming astrophysicist.

If only... . The pay sucks for writing gaming products though. Especially given the amount of effort one generally puts into writing a book.

You hit the nail on the head here with one word, "veneer" and you are completely correct. Traveller since day one has tried to sound "realistic and respectable" but it wasn't really - it wasn't intended to BE realistic and respectable; it was intended to be fun and different and do away with as many "fantasy" items as possible.

I don't think that's true. Book 6 is filled with astronomical tables and info that can only be there because the authors were trying to be realistic. If all they wanted was gonzo space opera, then there would have been no need for any of that info in book 6. And that stuff has stayed with Traveller in subsequent versions of the game too.

So what you are asking for is a consistent, realistic, workable system that prevents these anomalies. Which, according to you and others here, we never had "out of the box". As you stated in your examples Traveller was never "tempered by the gritty feel of the setting and the detail level of the design systems it's had"; actually you stated it had this level of detail but then specifically with regards to star and system gen you pointed out that it has never had this and it is something you want.

Like I said above, I think the original goal with book 6 was to make a system that was realistic - otherwise why waste all the effort of putting that stuff there in the first place? The designers tried to get there, but ironically while the astronomical data was generally correct for the time, the game systems used to interface with that were completely screwy (e.g. the broken stargen table that means most habitable worlds orbit subdwarfs and white dwarfs).

I would like to see Traveller pushed back toward that, not further away from it.

But to sink to a level of bashing the author and or saying that someone is wrong if they don't care about the star gen system, well that too is wrong as is the notion that it MUST be done differently.

I've not "bashed" anyone who doesn't care about the stargen. I have however been "bashed" by a couple of people for things they think I've said (which I didn't say).

As for "bashing the author", I don't believe Marc is immune to criticism. He's made plenty of dumb, criticisable decisions in his time (especially with T5).

 

[GamerDude]

At least in GT, a ships velocity is described in "Gs" as in how many gravities.

No, they're not. The ship's Acceleration is very clearly listed in Gs in the GT corebook. Look at all the ship stats, they give "Accel" in G and Top Air Speed in mph. Nowhere does it claim that the ship's velocity is in Gs.

SJG just don't make that kind of stupid mistake.

Go back an look, I'm talking STL...

And yes they do. Always drove me crazy.

I also noticed you ignored the issues with the diagram scale... yes they do make boneheaded mistakes... which is why they needed Compendium I & II... (besides generating cash)

 

[EDG]

Go back an look, I'm talking STL...

So am I (it's not like you're going to use Gs in jumpspace). Cite a page reference to what you're talking about.

And yes they do. Always drove me crazy.

Their playtest process is VERY thorough. Not a lot slips through that - the actual material itself is gone over with a fine toothcomb. SJG books generally have short errata lists, and the errors are usually minor. The only time it hasn't been short is when they've screwed up on the printing or graphics (e.g. when they somehow printed the wrong draft of BtC, or TS: In The Well's broken Mars map)

which is why they needed Compendium I & II... (besides generating cash)

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. They released CI and CII to put the skills, ads, disads, new rules etc that had crept in through the ton of supplements that had been released all in one place. Now all that stuff is in the 4e core rulebooks.

Either way though, this isn't the place to bitch and moan about SJG - it's not relevant to anything here.

 

[GamerDude]

*

I'm curious as to what area of computers you're educated in? This is not meant as flame bait, it's just that most people who talk about computers are referring to PC and server networks that don't reflect vehicle computing.

*
Programming, web coding, Network design installation & maintenance, Systems Analysis.
*

I work in the car industry, specifically the mechanical design of electo-mech modules that the driver interfaces with to control the vehicle. There is no single central computer that controls it all that the customer decides what software to instal after they've bought the car. Each module arrives in the assembly plant with it's (unique) control software already installed as part of the delivery price.

*
First note I keep saying GT, meaning GURPS Traveller. My CT experience is a short campaign with a few modules from the day. We're not talking about a 'car' which, compared to say a 200-ton Far Trader is like a potato gun compared to say, a 'beam weapon'...

In GT (at least) you have a hull, listed in displacement by X number of tons of Liquid Hydrogen... then streamlined (atmospheric, loosing 20% of it's internal volume) or not (extra-planatary only), comes with so many empty gun spaces/turrets (can be filled with weapons or can be extra cargo space), STL & FTL drives (depending on the hull from Jump 1 to 5), atmospheric drives with contragrav (if streamlined), and so forth. You even have options on what TL computer you want (depending on how much you want to spend).

Today's cars, as I understand their design, are built with only so many options. But, at least w/GT, you have options for what software packages to buy allowing you to not pay for systems you don't need (like for controlling gun turrets if they are just empty/storage). Thus in GT you buy your various system software packages separately.

*

The realistic approach is to dump computers completely and assume the computing needed to fully control a spaceship/starship is part of the bridge tonnage and cost. Part of that cost is the unique software needed to control that ship. LBB 5 smallcraft don't need a seperate computer.

*
Ok, I now see several issues here:
A) you are dealing from a "20th century automobile engineering" systems viewpoint
B) 'small craft' are in-system boats (SPACEships) and not what I'm talking about... Interstellar/FTL craft (STARships).
C) My experience with Traveller, as I have said repeatedly, is primarily GURPS Traveller (followed closely behind by T20).
At least in GT (I never did starship design in T20, I left that to a player who liked to do statistical analysis for fun), the ship's computer was primarily one central system and you bought the package for each major system.

Now, seeing (from your post) that CT didn't go into that depth, why should that stop MGT/T5 from doing so? Why should something from thousands of years from now (at least about 1500 years) that weighs millions of pounds and can travel faster than light be constrained to the 'reality' of today's "automobile design mindset".

Mind you, I'm not advocating some ridiculously complex and detailed system, but I had no trouble with the one in GT and found it very easy to use...

 

[GamerDude]

which is why they needed Compendium I & II... (besides generating cash)

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. They released CI and CII to put the skills, ads, disads, new rules etc that had crept in through the ton of supplements that had been released all in one place. Now all that stuff is in the 4e core rulebooks.

Re-read the intro/forward to CI, written by steve himself... they had too many variations across their books of the material that got consolidated and 'cannonized' in CI &CII...

But, since I am using GT, their mistakes and errors do play a part in this..

I'll get you your reference in the next day or two... I'm enjoying sitting on the sofa with my wife watching a good move (Gone in 60 Seconds) while on the laptop... ain't getting up right now.

 

[EDG]

But, since I am using GT, their mistakes and errors do play a part in this..

They consolidated their material, that's not "mistakes and errors". The material itself is fine, they did that to remove any contradictions that crept in.

 

[jerich01]

As this all boils down to business though, I'll reiterate that "fun" is the only way to constrain game design in the end as we game designers would all like to go home and be able to pay our bills, eat pizza, etc... If we didn't we'd give away our "ideal" games for everyone's enjoyment.

You do realise that most games that are published are the writer's ideal game (especially on the small press side), right? Like all those fantasy heartbreakers that get released by one guy on PDF that purport to "solve all the problems of D&D" or whatever.

Sorry, my bad I was referring to real businesses not the gaming wet dreams of some fanboy; and before someone yells, yes, there have been some awesome PDF wet dreams out there... The companies I have worked for/with have all been companies composed of folks who made their living doing game design. The good companies always had a marketing person trying to position the company to make money and decisions of compromise were made to try and position the products. The new D&D preview books give a good picture of behind the scenes decision making; stuff gets left out, editted, etc; I can't think of a single game I worked on that didn't have some compromise built in that was not part of the author or team leaders ideal game; with maybe the exception of Palladium Books; Rifts has been 95%-99% what Kevin wants...

Now, you may have a different experience; not sure if you worked for a gaming company or not; either as interested fan, freelancer or honest-to-goodness employee and I certainly don't want to invalidate anyone's experience. As I said, when I wrote my initial post this morning I was thinking of real companies with products and balance sheets...

Anyhow, enough on this subject... Let's get on with the game info...

J.

 

[Takei]

Mind you, I'm not advocating some ridiculously complex and detailed system, but I had no trouble with the one in GT and found it very easy to use...

I've played and run all editions of Traveller (apart from Hero) since 1979. I'm not saying that including computers and software is complicated, what I AM saying is that they add an unnecessary level of detail to the game and are, IMO, unrealistic.

From the V3.1 playtest doc;

Bridge
All ships must have a bridge containing basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

What's wrong with saying that the hardware and software needed to fly the ship is included in the bridge tonnage and cost? I would consider 'proper' operation of the ship to include using it's Jump drive, so why add a seperate software package to allow 'proper' operation?

On computers;

Computer
The basic controls do not include the ship's computer, which is installed adjacent to the bridge. The computer is identified by its model number; the computer table indicates details of price, capacity, and tech level available. In general, larger computers are more advantageous in combat situations. Ship's computers work just like personal computers (see page XX), but the software for ship operations requires more processing power than normal program (see Ship Software, page XX).

So the only game use for computers is in combat - why not just call them Fire Control Computers (as was done in T4)?

 

[AKAramis]

Because T4 sucked. Badly.

 

[GamerDude]

Y'know what's killing me?

All this 'realism vs whatever' debate using narrow viewpoints of automotive engineers and acutal astro-like physicists...

and NONE of it has anything to do with MGT/T5!

I ALMOST threw my hands up and wrote off these games, then I realized that , for some reason, EDG and such should be over at http://www.travellerrpg.com, logged into their CotI forums (Citizens Of The Imperium) and discuss this in the "Classic Traveller" section.

Runs over to CotI for a real discussion about CT... returns to T5/MGT here.

 

[AKAramis]

Y'know what's killing me?

All this 'realism vs whatever' debate using narrow viewpoints of automotive engineers and acutal astro-like physicists...

and NONE of it has anything to do with MGT/T5!

I ALMOST threw my hands up and wrote off these games, then I realized that , for some reason, EDG and such should be over at http://www.travellerrpg.com, logged into their CotI forums (Citizens Of The Imperium) and discuss this in the "Classic Traveller" section.

Runs over to CotI for a real discussion about CT... returns to T5/MGT here.

No, not really. EDG brings out the worst in the Grognards. Resulting in lots of annoyance for mods. (including me.) He basically got chased away over there.

And it does have a valid point towards MoTrav... if Gar and Chris are willing to understand his point and feel it worthy. We know that Marc has rejected EDG's basic hypothesis about realism; he's said so. So T5 is probably just as broken as the rest on the issues brought up.

 

[EDG]

All this 'realism vs whatever' debate using narrow viewpoints of automotive engineers and acutal astro-like physicists...

There's plenty of other threads for you to be on instead of this one, you know. If you don't like it, stop wasting your time here.

and NONE of it has anything to do with MGT/T5!

It doesn't have to have anything to do with MGT or T5. Look at the label for this forum on the main forum page:

Traveller
Discuss the Traveller RPG and its myriad settings

That means it's open to any discussion about Traveller, chum - not just playtest-related. So do stop complaining and stop trying to dictate what other people can or cannot talk about here.

I ALMOST threw my hands up and wrote off these games, then I realized that , for some reason, EDG and such should be over at http://www.travellerrpg.com, logged into their CotI forums (Citizens Of The Imperium) and discuss this in the "Classic Traveller" section.

I suspect you're the one that'll be more at home on CotI somehow - you'd fit right into the local mentality there.

Meanwhile, I and anyone else who wants to talk about this sort of thing will continue to do so here, as we have every right to. If you don't like it then tough, but at least have the decency to not threadcrap at every opportunity just because you don't like it. And unless someone made you a moderator without anyone knowing, you don't have any right to suggest to people that they should talk about anything, or tell them what they can or can't talk about. Like I said, if you don't like the discussion then go find another one to participate in, nobody's forcing you to be involved here. Given your attitude I suggest that you do everyone a favour and ignore these threads if they bug you so much.

 

[EDG]

He basically got chased away over there.

Driven off, more like. But its for the best, I found CotI to be generally full of inanity anyway. Everyone (myself included) is happier that I'm not there.

 

[GamerDude]

He basically got chased away over there.

Driven off, more like. But its for the best, I found CotI to be generally full of inanity anyway. Everyone (myself included) is happier that I'm not there.

ahh.. yes the "never discuss a topic in the APPROPRIATE FORUM!

And, I have been a member of CotI since within a month or two of it being opened to the public, was on the pre-order list for T20 three weeks after it was announced.

 

[captainjack23]

He basically got chased away over there.

Driven off, more like. But its for the best, I found CotI to be generally full of inanity anyway. Everyone (myself included) is happier that I'm not there.

Well, yes. Banning for cause is indeed being chased off, but also includes the extra bonus of not being allowed back.

And you certainly contributed your share to it. The inanity I mean...if thats what it was that you were so prolific on posting. Me, I thought you had some good stuff to say, on some topics.

 

[GamerDude]

Me, I thought you had some good stuff to say, on some topics.

EDG does have some great things to say on some topics...

It's just a matter of delivery, allowing others to disagree, and taking the blinders off..

 

[AKAramis]

CaptainJack:

Having read the materials related to EDG's banning on COTI, as they are still in the admin's forum there, I assure you, you are QUITE wrong on that score. His banning was his own request, not an imposed ban for misbehavior on his part.

EDG, as I said, does tend to bring out the worst side of the Grognards.

Sadly, he makes good points that get lost due to the messenger.

Realism in system design should be doable. It needn't be perfect, but Traveller system generation is quite far from perfect. Far enough to qualify as space-fantasy, not as sci-fi.

I've preordered (through my FLGS) the MoTrav core. I'm looking forward to the SRD, and to working on fixes myself.

Perhaps to seeing how much of Deep7's DEEP system I can inflict upon it... (Grin). One advantage to open systems: they provide tools for legitimate tweaking with system and genre.

 

[GamerDude]

CaptainJack:
Having read the materials related to EDG's banning on COTI, as they are still in the admin's forum there, I assure you, you are QUITE wrong on that score. His banning was his own request, not an imposed ban for misbehavior on his part.

Why would anyone REQUEST they be banned from a forum site? Are they just that incapable of NOT going there?

 

[captainjack23]

CaptainJack:

Having read the materials related to EDG's banning on COTI, as they are still in the admin's forum there, I assure you, you are QUITE wrong on that score. His banning was his own request, not an imposed ban for misbehavior on his part.

....okay. And Hunter's explanation that he was banned for rudeness ? And then having to defend it....and not pointing out that it was EDG's request ?

I mean, Huh ?

I mean, I could see EDG saying "go ahead and ban me" , or "if you don't like it ban me " but that is a bit different from "please may I have a ban for no reason ?"

I was just commenting on his choice of words, suggesting that "kicked out" may be more appropriate than "chased out". I guess your point is that "he ran away" ?

Well, whatever. Weirdness.

EDG, as I said, does tend to bring out the worst side of the Grognards.

Sadly, he makes good points that get lost due to the messenger.

Realism in system design should be doable. It needn't be perfect, but Traveller system generation is quite far from perfect. Far enough to qualify as space-fantasy, not as sci-fi.

Well, oddly enough he and I share that. But yes, he does work against himself, and plays badly into the ranting grognard stereotype associated with trying to make the point. Which doesn't help.

I've preordered (through my FLGS) the MoTrav core. I'm looking forward to the SRD, and to working on fixes myself.

Perhaps to seeing how much of Deep7's DEEP system I can inflict upon it... (Grin). One advantage to open systems: they provide tools for legitimate tweaking with system and genre.

Deep7 ?

Is that like Deep13, but with only half* the sarcastic robots ? :mrgreen:

Cap

* Okay, .538 of the robots, .538 of the mike or joel .