Seems I need to tackle weather...

The Morrow Project game is off and running.

I was in evil GM mode to start with, this team was placed in an unfinished bolt-hole (located SW of Colorado Springs) to start with due to the world falling apart around them. Their transport crashed short of their planned location, so they had to make do with a bolt-hole with nothing but their assigned personal (i.e. carried) gear. No vehicles, no extras.

Upon waking, they decided to head to the nearest town and get more information on why upon waking they don't have any radio sat contact, and how they have full growth trees around their location when the plan was for a 5 year 'sleep'. Upon finding ruins, they turned south east and headed for their 'planned' location in the hopes of getting both more equipment (vehicles they cry!) and perhaps more information.

About a week of cross-country hiking though wilderness.

So I got to hit them with mutant rats and lizards, many outdoor survival experiences (great fun), and the run away weather as they enter something of a wild zone (that I like calling Damnation Alley, stolen from the movie of course).

By pure luck, one of the eight PCs took all the significant 'hits'. He was grabbed by the man-eating plant. He had to live with common if painful insect stings, He was hit not once, but twice by the random post-apoc Lightning storm that is common in the Alley.

Oh, and he was stabbed in the backside by a flying piece of lumber blown by the wind storm in the same Alley after their failed 'find/make Shelter' roll left him in the open.

One other character got sunburn...

Such is the roll of the dice.

Oh, about the title of this post. I used the weather charts from the original Morrow Project rule book. But I was hoping to find something with a bit more detail broken down by various weather 'zones'.

Anyone have any suggestions that I can find online? I want something in table/chart format and not a generator program.

On a less serious note

Taking a bit of break from serious theory (as if anything connected to RPGs can really be serious).

I've always wanted to run a game in a setting close to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qTEAYKXwJU

There was an RPG published for it, using the ill fated (and poorly done) FUZION system which was a horrid hybrid using HERO System in part. Not very good, but I'm happy I have the books.

Never played it. It's still one of my 'want to do campaigns'.

HERO 6th Still on that slow boat from China

According to the Hero Games website, their books didn't make it on the boat on the 10th after all, but is said to have managed it more than a week later.

Far as I'm concern, it can stay on that slow boat forever.

I wonder if I could start an Old School HERO movement like the D&D OSR guys? Likely not. I think D&D is the only game that could support that type of thing.

Flaws of GNS- Part VI: Conclusion

We've reached the end of our series review GNS, what it claims to do and what it in fact actually does. To recap:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
3. It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
4. It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
5. GNS becomes a circular assumption.
6. GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
7. Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
8. Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
9. Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
10. The Big Model core and basis is GNS
11. The Big Model's primary use is as a debate dodge to deflect criticism of GNS

Logically flawed, we can now see that GNS fails completely in its effort to define or model RPGs as most people think of them. Indeed, if followed the model will produce something that is basically another type of game completely.

Does this mean that there's nothing of value to be found in GNS or any of the rest of the Forge's body of work?

Not really. There are good things to be found in it, if only at the edges.

The beginning concept of Game, Story, Sim does have its grounding in what makes a rpg. GNS may take it beyond 'too far', but that original insight can help people decide on their own what type of mix they may want in their campaigns or if the mix is even important to them. Just remember points 1-3 from above- the definitions will be your own and shared views of them will be difficult if not impossible. Further, the mix will likely change moment to moment.

Further, the greatest danger of even a well formed Threefold style model is that it may blind you to only thinking in those three terms. I consider it highly unlikely that the world of RPG gaming is so limited.

With that in mind, for those wanting something like that three-way split, I'd suggest the original r.g.f.a Threefold as a starting point to be altered to taste. Better yet, go four-way with the WotC model. It's good to use real data even if you don't have all of it (WotC released the summary, but not the questions and responses).

Edwards often references the work of others, and those references certainly point to things of value. Tweet's resolutions methods for example. Another example is that much of his article on Gamism seems to be influenced by various self-declared Gamists (likely including myself) that objected to his original more insulting short definition. It even links to a couple of my own articles on tactics and strategy in game design and uses my homebrew game Age of Heroes as an example.

Now I feel it's better to come across these things in a way other than the Forge. But at worse the GNS movement has some value in exposing real work on RPG theory to interested people by means of criticisms such as this series. Try some of the links on this blog. Explore other blogs. Generally anyone not talking about GNS has something interesting to say.

The Forges definition of Narrativist while very specific is still a method of viewing a Story based campaign. Some people like it. The games produced (for the best examples of the theory) by the theory are not what people commonly consider to be RPGs- but they are still games of some type liked by a certain type of player.

And finally, GNS stands as an excellent example of what not to do. Such experience is always gained at a cost. Don't waste it.

Part I, II, III, IV, V

Flaws of GNS- Part V: The Big Model

GNS is the foundation of Edward's thought on RPGs, and the driving goal of Forge style game design. As I've shown in this series, GNS is basically junk and wishful thinking.

One of the common responses by GNS believers to anyone pointing this out is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense, i.e. they claim you can't talk about GNS because you have to first understand (and it's implied, agree with) the Big Model. Leonardo did this very thing in the comments for Part III.

It's a bit like saying you need to understand Special Relativity before you can comment on someone claiming that F = m*a^2 (Force = Mass * Acceleration squared), when anyone with a basic grounding in education should know it's F = m * a.

And really, that's all one need say about the Big Model with respect to GNS, anyone invoking it is trying to change the subject. Johnnie Cochran would be happy with them, but most people would like to slam them upside the head with something heavy. I'd suggest a fifth edition revised HERO System book, or a baseball bat. Baseball bats have the advantage of tradition and effectiveness, but the HERO book suits our hobby. Your choice.

But I like picking apart things, so lets look at that Big Model a bit more (i.e. more than it deserves).

So, what is the Big Model and how does it relate to GNS?

Sadly it has its own wiki entry, which goes to show that one doesn't have to be worth a dime to be in wiki- you just need someone to add it. The upside is that its noted as lacking any information on notability (i.e. why it should have an entry), and that almost makes wiki my friend. They will be when they delete it.

One can also go to the Forge Articles for information, but there's not a single article on it there. You'll have to dig through all of them, collect the pieces and assemble them on your own time That was actually of value to the Forge supporters as it means anyone questioning them would have to put more work into it than it was worth.

If however you have time to waste, the Glossary is the best place to start. Note that it references the same GNS articles we've already talked about as its components.

What it breaks down to is something similar to my own Layers Model, but with a completely different goal showing in effect how people interact in order to achieve their Creative Agenda. Oh, and Creative Agenda is GNS.

Along the way it stops to define a few common elements of games- like characters and settings (as if people don't know about them) while adding highbrow terms like Color and Ephemera in place of simpler words just because it wouldn't be a Edward's thing without them.

What is key about this is that the Big Model is focused on GNS, it's that big arrow that runs through the whole mess in the diagram found at the link. It exists only to show the reader how everything in the view of its creator depends upon GNS.

Logically however that is true only if GNS is true. And we know that's false.

So to return to GNS supporters who say you 'have to understand the Big Model in order to comment on if GNS has any value'...

Here's another way of saying the same thing: 'In order to say Nessie doesn't exist, you have to understand field of Cryptozoology'.

There's a word that sort of claim- stupid.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
3. It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
4. It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
5. GNS becomes a circular assumption.
6. GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
7. Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
8. Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
9. Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
10. The Big Model core and basis is GNS
11. The Big Model's primary use is as a debate dodge to deflect criticism of GNS
    

Part I, II, III, IV, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part IV: Conflict with Reality

The proponents of GNS have never offered anything except their own opinions and anecdotal examples as evidence of its validity. That doesn’t mean that more reasoned evidence on its effectiveness can’t be found. Indeed, we can look at what the model presents and test it against real world results.

GNS makes basically two key predictions that we can match against real world data:

1. There are three (and only three) exclusive and driving goals for players of rpgs- Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism
2. These three goals are directly related to mechanics of the game.

If GNS is a valid theory, we'd expect those two statements represented in any study of players, their needs and desires. That is: we'd find a three-way division of player goals with players of certain goals favoring certain styles of rpgs and avoding others.

RPGs are not a heavily studied field, and that fact has been to the advantage of GNS as they ask their critics to prove a negative (instead of proving their assertions, which is where the burden actually rests). There is however one study performed by WotC that directly answers the above prediction.

Rather than three goals or types of players, WotC found four: Power Gamers, Thinkers, Storytellers, and Character Actors. None of these really match any of the three GNS corners although Gamist and Power Gamer can be said to be the closest pairing.

So no three way split, and the measuring sticks (determined by WotC after the study was completed and thus determined to be the most effective of the possible measurements) are completely different (given that Narrativism <>Story): Story - Combat, Strategic - Tactical.

To quote the Study article:

"We also found no additional segmentation based on what games people identified as their "favorite"; in other words, there are just as many Power Gamers as there are Storytellers who like Vampire, and just as many Thinkers as Character Acters who like D&D."

No difference in player goals across different games? But GNS says this cannot be the case, in it's view System Does Matter. Real world data says differently, and theory must always give way to fact.

GNS takes additional hits from the following (again quoting the article):

"All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying."

Some of these 8 core values are matched to the original definition of a RPG I've been using in this series. To review:

It is a table-top game played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules.

The 8 core values are:

• Strong Characters and Exciting Story
• Role PlayingComplexity Increases over Time
• Requires Strategic Thinking
• Competitive
• Add on sets/New versions available
• Uses imagination
• Mentally challenging

Some of these match the definition above rather nicely, and since GNS pulled from to get its three assumed corners- there is some match there as well. However the WotC study showed that ALL 8 values were important to the RPG gamer. Not just one.

The conclusion is rather clear. When gamers are studied and their play styles grouped- they don't break out into the GNS expected three groups. Further, the GNS exclusion doesn't have any significant match in reality. Players and their games are mix of goals- not a search for only one.

Not only are the goals not in fact exlusive, players actually meet their goals independently of the game systems. The two defining elements of GNS don't match reality, and the Theory lies disproved.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
3. It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
4. It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
5. GNS becomes a circular assumption.
6. GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
7. Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
8. Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
9. Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics

Part I, II, III, V, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part III: Plan Meets Need

Continuing our examination of GNS, we've reach a parting of the ways with its processor the Threefold. Until now the failures have been shared between the models as one would expect given their similarities.

At this point, although flawed- the Threefold could at least be useful to a set of people who could agree on terms. It would likely be highly limiting given it's lack of a serious foundation and errors of logic and it would draw flamewars like mad. But even so, a few might find some use in it as a way of saying 'different people play for different reasons' if nothing else.

GNS however makes some serious additional mistakes.

First, let's toss that simple definition of what a RPG is back up to keep it in mind. It will become important latter.

It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).

In addition to greatly changing the Threefold definitions to suit himself, Edwards would make two other new claims that would take GNS down a completely different path.

First is that he would in effect make a circular argument. After pulling the Gamist, Story (renamed Narrativist) and Simulation out of the above definition of a RPG and making them into goals, he would then claim that those goals are directly supported and must be supported by the game system.

Thus saying, in order: (RPG components) == (Play Goals) == (Mechanic Systems).

This is done just by claiming it's so, without evidence and backing.

His next step however would be even more impactful. It drives GNS and the game design approach that arises from Edward's body of theory. Quoting from System Does Matter:

"To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."

A rather amazing statement and one critical to what GNS is. To realize its impact let's plug this assumption back into the original definition of a RPG.

It is table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people OR it consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) OR it is set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).

That certainly isn't the original instinctive definition now is it?

The original was inclusive saying that all three components made up an RPG meanwhile GNS is basically saying that a good RPG only contains one and avoids the other two. So GNS took a simple instinctive definition of the RPG, and completely turned it upon its head. Basically a bait and switch.

The goal of any RPG Theory (i.e. its 'need') is to better explain what a RPG is and how to design them. But the method (i.e. 'plan') of GNS drives one to create something that isn't an RPG at all.

At this point some could say that perhaps GNS has it right, and that the instinctive definition that I and others would put forth was an error. Edwards is big on saying that the original writers of RPGs were wrong.

Let's take that up in Part IV.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
3. It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
4. It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
5. GNS becomes a circular assumption.
6. GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new.

Part I, II, IV, V, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part II: Devil in the Details

To continue our examination of GNS (and the related Threefold), let's review that nearly instinctive definition of an PnP RPG:

It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).

Jumping from there to a Threefold or GNS like Model sure is tempting. It would be flawed of course. Saying goals == components is quite the leap; and then limiting ourselves to only three possible goals is yet another. But it is tempting.

And when left vague, maybe not all that harmful. After all, it would seem likely that people may favor one component of an activity over another. So why not flow with it?

Why not? Because people need more than just a vague idea from their models. They need to stake out their ground, what is theirs and what is not. That is the point of labels. That's the first thing we do when we encounter them.

And that is when things fly apart.

Let's take one example from the early days of Threefold debate in rec.games.frp.advocacy. The Simulation people wanted to claim self-consistent settings as a characteristic of Simulation, i.e. they should be internally realistic. This is after all the key point of the Simulation concept- the very attempt to make something as real as possible within its framework.

Makes sense doesn't it?

Well... not so fast. The Story/Drama people were insulted. After all they claim, everyone knows a key element of good fiction is suspension of disbelief, and to have that one must have self-consistent settings that appear real to the viewer.

Sigh

We're not even out of the gate with a threefold theory and we already have a flamewar to the death going. Years and many electrons were burned in r.g.f.a over that one issue (alongside others of course). The feelings on both sides were very strong and reasonably so, as each considered the concept key to how they did things. In effect, the Simulation side (who controlled the FAQ and thus the model) was seriously insulting the Story side by claiming they didn't do what they felt was key to the success of what they were doing.

Neither side were willing to give nor did they, and the news group fell apart when they just should have given up the Threefold.

That's only one example that I wasn't directly involved in. I have lots more (some I was involved in), but let's save space. I think the point is made. Moving from something vague and on the surface reasonable to something actually defined is one heck of a long distance move- and may not even be possible.

The key point here is that the maker of any model is highly likely to lump those things important to him into those parts of the model he favors and deny it to the other parts. Even when those things are shared by multiple parts. They are in turn likely to split away any feature that they don't like from their favored label to a unfavored one.

The pressure to do this is immense, after all the point of having three different labels is for them to be different- and they're not if they're doing the same things. The conflict is nearly unavoidable. In fact, let's give it a name- Definition Conflict

GNS is subject to these same pressures and reality.

Consider Ron's full length article on what Narrativism is, assuming your eyes don't glaze over and you go brain-dead from the effort. Roughy 23 thousand words there to define a very specific concept of Story. One that isn't one in common use by any means, and one that likely didn't apply to any significant number of rpg campaigns until he started to apply it. But without doubt, one that is important to Ron himself.

Such a thing by itself would construct a model that would only be useful to those who are seeking that specific sub-definition of story. And we all know what Ron thinks of other definitions of Story, I covered that in my history of GNS series- he considers them to be brain-damaged.

The same applies to the other two corners, GNS defines very detailed sub-definitions of what are started out as vague concepts and excludes all others sub-definitions. This is on top of the inherent Definition Conflict.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
3. It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
4. It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people

Next: Inserting the 'Exclusive Or'

Part I, III, IV, V, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part I: The Appeal

Given the recent outbreak of GNS at a few web forums and some questions here, it may be worthwhile to review GNS not in terms of history as I've done before on this blog but on its own merit as theory. While I've written about this before, I realized I don't have a single link of the sum of my views on the matter and it's time I did.

We'll examine GNS as presented in the official articles presented at the Forge. Most key in this will be System Does Matter and GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory although I may touch upon other ones if my interest can be maintained (or if readers express interest). Readers may want to read or review my history article as I wish to avoid repeating things stated there if possible.

GNS is the foundation of what is in fact a larger collection of writings reflecting Ron Edward's views on rpg. Some are his, many were taken from the writings of others (such as Jonathan Tweet's methods of resolution).

GNS however is just about the only thing out of that large collection that one ever hears about. It is basically the Face front and center of Forge thought, drawing all attention even from the supporters of Edwards and the Forge. The question thus arises: Why?

I'd like to kick off this critical review of GNS with that simple question. For which I feel there are two answers that in combination explain much of why it had any appeal at all.

The first is that people love to group others and themselves. A quick glance at websites like http://www.quibblo.com/ reveals this quickly. I'm even prone to this and have taken tests to tell me which "Fantasy Writer am I" and other rather silly time wasters.

So we like the idea of labels and groups up front, we're human and that's what we do. We define the world and stake out our ground.

But this by itself doesn't explain GNS for there have been other systems of labels in the RPG world, to name but one- Blacow's Four Aspects. Those aren't a source for flamewars all over the Internet. What makes GNS different?

That is found in my second point, and that's is the nearly instinctive view of what an PnP RPG is. There are those who would differ with this definition, but I think this captures a gut level reaction for what most people consider an rpg to be:

It is a table-top game played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules.

That is a simple definition whose basic thrust you'd find in the earliest of RPG designs often as an introduction, these more than a decade before GNS or the Threefold.

Let's rephrase it just a bit.

It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).

Thus the GNS/Threefold Theories are based at their most simple upon a common definition of an RPG. Its component building blocks as it were. To someone who plays RPGs, there would be an almost instinctive reaction that the theory was correct- for it matches what they feel at a gut level an RPG consists of.

But GNS/Threefold are not about the components of an RPG. They are instead about player goals and requirements. The fact that these theories have made a leap from apples to oranges is easy to miss unless one pays careful attention.

Thus the theories appeal to our desire to group and label (and defend our personal group), and it builds upon our gut instinct of what a rpg is as a springboard.

But what evidence do the presenters of such theories give that all player goals match those components of the RPG definition? None.

Do they tell us why we should make that assumption to begin with? No.

Instead the theory appeals to an unexamined assumption out of the gate, and thus it starts off a fallacy and things only get worse.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals

Part II, III, IV, V, VI

A outbreak of GNS

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.", Socrates.

Looking over my site stats, it seems that I've had quite an up tick in recent traffic despite my rather inconsistent postings of late. Reviewing them I noticed that a number of rpg web forums are encountering a new round of GNS debates.

Those exchanges will on occasion link to this site, mostly to my Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep series (starts here, with links to the next article in the series at the bottom).

To anyone arriving here, welcome. I hope you find something useful.


Most the traffic is coming from http://www.giantitp.com/, but there are others and I've seen reports of similar exchanges on other websites. It appears that followers of GNS are making a reappearance for whatever reason. They're following their old methods of operation, i.e. arrive at a forum and attempt to turn everything into a GNS exchange.

From what I've seen of the postings, they aren't based around any new games or insights. Instead they are focused on what I'd call '1st generation' Forge Games before they openly leaped into games about rape and worse. They also try to explain away the worst of the GNS history as mistakes of word choice or the like (if anyone should bring it up).

It seems that the GNS cult has lain low for the last few years in the hopes that people forgot what they stood for, and so that they could begin again with a clean slate to regain their glory.

I'm pleased if my little blog in any small way stands in their path.

I've spoken before about the validity of GNS, in the history article and elsewhere. I don't think there's anything further for me to add except to wish well any who rejects that model. You're right, and with luck we'll see GNS continue its fading with this new traffic being the last gasp of a decaying corpse.

The coming of HERO 6th Edition

According to the herogames.com website, today's the day that 6th edition was suppose to be loaded on the slow boat from China. It still hasn't shown up for even advanced sales on places like Amazon yet, so the truth of that claim can be debated.

The whole thing is something I dread, a coming of something like the D&D 4E edition wars that will result in my abandoning of any new HERO System production.

One of the telling signs is that unlike the previous production of 5th edition, there's no single easily found description of all the changes that 6th will make. I did find a list of links to 'showcased' changes here. I doubt there will be a list or PDF of all the system changes. Judging from those showcases and other statements on the official website- they're just too extensive, almost the equal of just printing the books.

Part of me wants to buy the rulebook so I can judge it fully based upon all the facts. But that part is fading. It seems that there are two core books now instead of one. Total using the package price is $70. However those two books don't contain everything, the links above contain references for an 'advance play book. So now we're at three books and likely $100 to replace the one book I currently have.

Now maybe if I found the changes useful, it would be worth it. But frankly they all look to be nit-picking of the worse type.

Sure, there's some sort of gain with things like Resistant Protection which replaces both armor and forcefield (the latter becomes a limited version, and would likely end up cheaper as a result). It's a more unified building block approach. But that's a abstract sort of gain that would appeal to a lawyer like Long instead of a gamer and is a haul mark of the thought processes that drive this edition.

There are downsides in such an approach. Before various powers could be defined in terms of Armor or Forcefield (NND with the defense being Forcefield is a classic, often used in lightsaber builds or similar weapons). Now that NND has to be defined against a set of power & power limits or special effects (completely meta-game determined at that point).

So one is trading one type of sloppy (different powers for the same core effect) for another sloppy (harder and more detailed listing of powers and power interaction), and I already know all the sloppy with 5th edition. There's no gain in total IMO, and in fact I consider the new method worse.

So why make such changes?

Two reasons come to mind. The first is the classic 'new edition to make more money' that drives much of the rpg market. The second is Long's ego and law trained mind. He bought HERO from the original owners and this is his chance to make it his own. That desire would natually express itself in his nit-picking build focused mindset and the attempt to actually make the points balanced (which is impossible no matter what he does).

So as of right now, I'm giving up on 6th and Hero Games as a lost cause after over 20 years of loyality. This is subject to change perhaps, but I'd have to have good reason to toss that much money to a design concept I don't support.

When is geeky too much geeky?

RPG Gamers are by nature a geeky bunch. Well except for those story first lite mechanics guys who are IMO anti-geek replacing cool tactical game mechanics and consistent game settings with ego building excercises, but I digress.

I certainly have earned the title of geek, after all you're find me calculating the recoil impulse for a H&K 416 chambered in the .50 Beowulf in order to use that number to determine a game stat. It's hard to get more geeky than that.

This is more geeky than that.

Now it wouldn't be more geeky if it was being done in reference to an on-going rpg campaign. There it speaks to how the campaign should progress and in what direction. Thus it would just be normal geek-dom, at least for our hobby. But when applied to a movie that was never intended (and never will) make sense beyond being a space opera fantasy, you've gone beyond geeky to just plain rabid fan super geek-dom.

And that is just embarrassing for everybody.