Robots & Rapiers: Design Change ideas

[Valamir]

Had an opportunity to do some more playtesting this weekend.

Conceptually the game is pretty tight, and I'm mostly happy with the mechanics except for two areas.

1) Handling time.  I've played just enough sessions now to feel pretty certain the game doesn't move as quickly as I'd like.

2) The rules are struggling between two competeing influences.  The first influence is the mechanical framework for "extended conflict" (including combat).  The second is the encouragement for players to improvise.  

The mechanical framework (the Turn Order and Action Point rules) I think are REALLY good.  In fact, I think the tweaks I made to Ron's Mongrel system work very well and is something I want to return to in the future.

However, the framework is really pretty structured.  A GOOD structure.  A very workable structure.  But too much structure, I'm comeing to think, to play nicely with the improv nature of character actions.  If the available actions were more limited (say to d20 "I attack", or TROS menu of manuevers) I think the framework would work well.  But too often in play I've been reduced to expending brain power on figuring out how to get a player's improved idea to fit within the framework.  A little bit of "ok, how to I take that idea and make it work with the system" is fine.  But too much means there's a conflict somewhere.

I have to choose to either deemphasize the improv, or replace the framework with something less structured.  

I was torn with which to go for.  A part of me wants to keep the framework, both because its really good and because there's a nice parallel to robot's fighting in a programmed manner.  However, the larger part says "improv is better because its more 'swashbuckly' and the robots are supposed to be flexing their newly found ability to act independent of programming anyway.  

So with that idea in mind, here are some concrete changes to the posted system I'm considering making which I think both reduces handling time and loosens up the framework.


1) Eliminate the Saving Throw roll.
I LOVE the Saving Throw roll.  In fact, its probably the single idea in the game that most enabled me to conceptualize how I wanted play to look.  However, its another step in handling time and pretty structured.

As a recap, the Saving Throw is a seperate roll triggered by a Test (skill roll) that essentially determines how "damaged" the target is by the Test.  Damage is in quotes because the system is designed to Save against any attribute so "damage" could be in the form of reduced Locomotion (agility) by being tripped, reduced Articulation (dexterity) by being grappled, reduced Perception by having mud thrown in the 'ole eye sensors, or actual Malfunctions (physical damage).  The damage takes the form of a reduction of the effected attribute score.

The problem is that in order to work, the player's desired effect has to be translatable into which attribute to Save against.  Sometimes this is easy...a trip maneuver triggers a Save vs Locomotion, a loss of Locomotion means the character is off balance which negatively impacts future Locomotion based rolls (like dodging).  This works real well if I had a menu of maneuvers, each of which mapped to a particular attribute (and I do have something like this in the form of examples).

However, in the world of improvised player declarations of the "I want to do X and cause Y" it can occassionally be a real bear to pin down exactly which attribute is at stake.  This is further compounded by 3 additional difficulties.

A) What happens when the action should clearly effect different types of activities which are governed by different attributes?   The rules are actually pretty clear about how to handle this.  Dice should be split to trigger seperate saving throws in each effected attribute.  In practice this is a) a pain in the tuckas and an increase in handling time, and b) doesn't allow for future applications of things that the action should have effected but which you didn't think of at the time to call for a Saveing throw for.

B) The penalty of attribute losses is an increase in handling time because you have to track the waxing and waning of attributes.  But also sometimes the desired effect is narrower than an attribute.  In other words the effect should reduce Locomotion for purpose X but not for purpose Y.

C) Sometimes the attribute that should be most clearly effected based on the description of the action, won't really be used much in the conflict anyway.  So while the described action should have some effect on the conflict, ultimately it doesn't because the reduced attribute is immaterial.

PROPOSED SOLUTION:
Instead of successes from a Test triggering a Saving Throw, and additional successes from the Test making the Saving Throw harder, and then the result of the Saving Throw resulting in attribute losses...

...Have the successes from the Test translate directly into effectiveness penalties.  Those effectiveness penalties then become mechanically the mathematical opposite of rolling successes over into future bonus dice for your own roll.  Instead you are rolling successes over into future penalty dice for an opponent's roll (with all of the multiple and persistant modifiers available).

This helps handling time by eliminating a die roll step and search time by eliminating a "GM has to think about what Save to call for" step.  It also helps loosen the structure by allowing the penalty dice to be applied in a customized fashion to whatever rolls the GM deems acceptable rather than trying to figure out which attribute should be reduced to simulate the effect.



2)   Eliminate Action Points and free up the Turn Order
The Action Points are a very effective system for regulating action.  However they have a couple of significant drawbacks.  a) handling time...its essentially another roll that has to be made currently, and an additional game currency that has to be tracked (which gets really annoying for larger numbers of NPCs).  b) it doesn't mesh well with "non extended conflict / non combat" rolls.  The APs provide a limiter on how many rolls can be chained together into a single manuever.  But outside of extended conflicts, there is no such limit to stringing rolls together.

PROPOSED SOLUTION:
Eliminate Action Points and allow what Action Points used to be spent for to now be achieved by spending Power or Inspiration.  This would accomplish several things.  a) eliminate the need for a new roll or a new currency to track, b) unify the rules for non extended conflict circumstances because Power and Inspiration are resources that are already being tracked and able to be spent.  c) create a more important purpose for Power in the game.  

Inspiration could be spent instead of Power representing the advantage of a Spark to innovate (as represented by chaining rolls together).  Self Awareness helps generate Action Points now, so this would simply maintain that edge for Sparked robots under the new system.

I also want to come up with a way to loosen up the rigid turn order somehow.  The Turn Order is quite functional, but not responsive enough to the demands of player improv.  I have yet to expend the necessary brainpower to come up with more than a vague notion of how this might look.


So.  Thoughts?

I know there are a few of you out there who have spent some time looking over the pdf rules on the website.

[GreatWolf]

First, I strongly believe that the system needs to move in the direction of improv, so I think that the sort of changes that you are proposing are good.  Now, to specifics.

Eliminating Saving Throws

I agree that this is a good idea.  It will also allow (potentially) for the elimination of the Durability Save chart, which felt a little clunky.  Instead, it *seems* as though a successful attack could purchase a "Wound Trait" or something like that.

Examples:

"Mud in eye:  -2 penalty to next attack" costs 3 successes (1 for the successful attack + 2 for the penalty)

"Leg damaged:  -2 persistent penalty" costs 5 successes (1 for the successful attack + 4 for the persistent penalty [2 successes per -1 persistent penalty])

This also means that repair becomes simpler as well.  Non-persistent penalties are eliminated after they are used, and persistent penalties have a built-in "cost" to eliminate (i.e. the number of successes paid to inflict the damage).


Action Point Replacement

I think that this is a good idea as well.  It allows another opportunity for the PCs to burn Inspiration, and, as you noted, it gives Power more importance (which I think is important).


Turn Order Replacement

I think that a one-pass outbid system could work well.  I think that I outlined this in a PM, but I'll do it again, so that others can provide feedback.

Here's the idea.  After a character completes an action, everyone can bid Power/Inspiration to take the next action.  This is done in the current turn order and only done once.  Therefore, a player who is outbid does not get a chance to bid higher.  (Just think of how Ra functions.)  The player who just took an action gets first bid; this handicaps him, because everyone will have a chance to outbid him.  Only the highest bidder actually spends Power/Inspiration and can choose how much of each to spend at the time of expenditure.  (e.g.  the player bids "5" to go first.  He wins and can then choose to spend 4 Power and 1 Inspiration; 2 Power and 3 Inspiration; or some other combination.)  The previous first player moves to the end of the list and then the highest bidder moves to the front of the line.

This should move fairly quickly, I think, since there will only be one pass through the characters.  One variant approach would be to allow one bid per player, which means that the GM can only bid for one NPC.  This would definitely speed up play and give a slight edge to the PCs, which isn't a bad thing in my mind.

Anyways, using this system allows the players to determine how important it is to "interrupt" the current turn order while defaulting to equal spotlight time.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Mike Holmes]

Huh, equal spotlight time per player independent of number of characters is a cool idea. Very cinematic. Good reference with the game Ra. You can play four games of that in an hour if you know what you're doing. The bidding is a fairly quick mechanic.

Mike

[LordSmerf]

I also support the elimination of Saving Throws, especially since it increases mechanical unity.  Essentially, understanding the basic roll-over mechanics suffices for helping yourself as well as hindering others.  Coupled with the elimination of action points and the addition of some sort of freeflow turn order (i like bidding by the way) should decrease the difficulty of using the system and decreasing S&H since the mechanics are simple enough that once you understand them there's nothing to reference.

Another reason i like the new "damage" system is that it is incredibly flexible.  I can drop a chandelier on a group of foes and give them all penalties...

Thomas

[Valamir]

Another reason i like the new "damage" system is that it is incredibly flexible. I can drop a chandelier on a group of foes and give them all penalties...

Yeah, you could do that before too.  It was just a pain in the ass.

You'd take the 1/2 multiplier for multiple opponents and then apply that many successes against each foe.  1 of those successes would trigger the save, the rest would make the save harder, and the result of the save (made seperately for each foe) would determine their penalty.

With the suggestion above, you just take the 1/2 multiplier for multiple opponents and apply that as a penalty to each foe.  Done.

Or, if each of the foes spent power to "defend" themselves, the single attacker roll would be compared to each defense roll seperately, with the net successes getting the 1/2 multiplier seperately.

[GreatWolf]

A related thought:

I tend to oppose division while gaming.  It increases handling time more than any other mathematical operation (in my experience).  However, this isn't a problem.  Rather than applying a 1/2 modifier, just provide a little table, like so:

Penalty Type                 Cost per -1
normal                           1
persistent                       2
group                             2
persistent group              4


This could even be printed on the character sheet as a quick reference, which makes sense, since it will be important during play.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[montag]

Amen to the above, especially the elimination of Action Points and Saving Throws.
In addition, though I haven't playtested, just read the alpha, I'd suggest redoing the dramatic editing part. IMHO it looks like a copy of the Adventure! system, which – again IMHO – makes it su..boptimal for the same reasons I'm not so fond of the A! system. Your modifications actually make it worse IMHO:
- the double use of inspiration forces players to choose between contributing to the game by dramatic editing and advancing their character. I OTOH would prefer to increase both.
- dramatic editing rules insufficiently account for the fact, that some players might want to use it to add to the story, not just to save their character's bacon. Your example with the letter from the count or somesuch which a player declares to be found on some trapped mooks was particularly horrifying for me in that respect. If it adds a new, interesting twist to the game, I'd say it doesn't matter either way if the letter is real or fake and I'd say players should be rewarded for coming up with such stuff, not having to sacrifice character advancement for it.
At the very least, consider making the introduction of pure complications free.
- I think you're missing out on a huge opportunity by not linking the Inspiration mechanic to the Self Awareness mechanic. In the description of the setting and purpose of the game, you mention, that the player "escapes" from the "tyranny" of the GM by increasing his characters Self Awareness and starts to make important choices about who or what his character is going to be. I'd say, take it one step further, and also make it about who the player is going to be: a passive consumer of GM plot and setting, or an "empowered player" (admittedly, this is also possible for players to achieve by making character development a secondary priority and spending their Inspiration on dramatic editing)
- I'd also encourage a bolder use of Spirtual Attributes (or whatever name you used). Eliminate the saving throws and make this stuff real powerful. In the current version it just breaks my heart to the characters motives de-emphazised by inserting another layer of randomness.
- I'm not sure, but I think the rule of being able to gain 1 Inspiration point for every one rolled is a strong temptation to min-max. If I understood correctly the quickest way to advancement is having a frequently used and very high stat (aggressive duelist, maybe) because this nets the largest number of dice to roll per session, which in turn nets the largest number of one's and hence the most inspiration. I could very well be wrong about this, though.

As it stands, I think it's a fantastic setting, truly amazing in fact, but I got the feeling that the system would be an albatross around my neck.
(and besides, could anyone offer some advice on what I should do about my intense desire to find some 7th-Sea players, tell them I've got an amazing campaign at hand, but we'd have to use a different system, since I don't know theirs (true) and run them through Robots and Rapiers without telling them beforehand?)

[Valamir]

Hey Montag, this thread is a little old, but your points are directly relevant and your timing is prett good since I'm just working on finishing up the beta version of the rules now.

Amen to the above, especially the elimination of Action Points and Saving Throws.

Saving Throws are gone, replaced by the system as outlined above.  They are still in the back of my mind demanding to be used for something...likely as the primary game mechanic rather than an adjunct to a die pool system, however.

The Action Points, however, have returned wearing a new set of clothes.  Gone is the random roll to generate them at the beginning of combat, replaced with a fixed number that periodically refreshes.  Gone also is the differentiation of using them only for combat.  Now they are a simple resource that regulates all die rolls unifying all forms of conflict into a single system.  They are also integrated into the entire Sparking process.  

Combined with what I think will be a much simplified turn order system, I think it will work well.  Playtesting will tell.

In addition, though I haven't playtested, just read the alpha, I'd suggest redoing the dramatic editing part. IMHO it looks like a copy of the Adventure! system, which – again IMHO – makes it sub optimal for the same reasons I'm not so fond of the A! system. Your modifications actually make it worse IMHO:

This system has been completely overhauled and is now largely independent of Inspiration Points.  I'm curious, however, what you found that made it "worse"?

- the double use of inspiration forces players to choose between contributing to the game by dramatic editing and advancing their character. I OTOH would prefer to increase both.

There is an intentional design choice in the game to offer other uses for Inspiration that will tempt players away from using them to buy Self Awareness (I hesitate to call it "advancing" their character..."transforming" is probably more accurate).

The choice to leave behind the old and embrace the new should not be an easy one, and there should be an opportunity cost to it.  There is an opportunity cost built into the roleplaying aspects of the setting, but I wanted a mechanical reinforcer to this concept as well.

That said, the old system was too expensive (too high of an opportunity cost) and did not get used once in any play test I ran.  I think I've come up with something much more intuitive that will get used more frequently in the game.

- dramatic editing rules insufficiently account for the fact, that some players might want to use it to add to the story, not just to save their character's bacon. Your example with the letter from the count or somesuch which a player declares to be found on some trapped mooks was particularly horrifying for me in that respect. If it adds a new, interesting twist to the game, I'd say it doesn't matter either way if the letter is real or fake and I'd say players should be rewarded for coming up with such stuff, not having to sacrifice character advancement for it.
At the very least, consider making the introduction of pure complications free.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Can you be more specific about what was insufficient or horrifying?  

- I think you're missing out on a huge opportunity by not linking the Inspiration mechanic to the Self Awareness mechanic. In the description of the setting and purpose of the game, you mention, that the player "escapes" from the "tyranny" of the GM by increasing his characters Self Awareness and starts to make important choices about who or what his character is going to be. I'd say, take it one step further, and also make it about who the player is going to be: a passive consumer of GM plot and setting, or an "empowered player"

I'm glad this is what you're hoping to see, because this is exactly what the game has been about since the beginning (so I didn't miss it).  The alpha rules didn't capture that very deeply because they were primarily intended as a test bed for the resolution mechanics.  So alot of what you want to see (I hope) is in the game already.

Some details that have been incorporated more fully into the Beta Rules.

When making a Test Roll, the player gets to narrate the events of their successful rolls.  The GM gets to narrate the events of their failed rolls.

However, the GM may attempt to over rule the players narration by setting the robot's core programming against its free will by making a Role Check (a simple 1d10 vs current Role Score).  If he does this he must give the player Inspiration

Also the player may attempt to over rule the GMs narration by setting the robot's free will against its core programming by making a Self Awareness Check (1d10 vs current Self Awareness score).  To do this he must spend Inspiration.

This Self Awareness Check is also where the new Dramatic Control rules surface.  By making a Self Awareness check, the player gets the right to use "director stance", so no additional Inspiration needs to be spent (other than the point for making the Check). .

I'm toying with the best way to set parameters around this.  Currently I'm leaning towards a similiar Minor, Moderate, Major split only tied to the number rolled on the 1d10 check.  Rolling a 1 or better lets you narrate a Minor effect, 4 or better a Moderate one, and 7 or better a Major one.  Of course, the roll also has to succeed, so with this system you can't ever get a major effect until you achieve at least Self Awareness 7.

I like the way this ties in to the idea of increasing robotic independence and ability to manipulate the Tapestry to their own ends.  Much of the "director stance" stuff can be explained as being things the robot set in motion during intra session down time as he starts to manipulate Auvernais to his own ends.

- I'd also encourage a bolder use of Spirtual Attributes (or whatever name you used). Eliminate the saving throws and make this stuff real powerful. In the current version it just breaks my heart to the characters motives de-emphazised by inserting another layer of randomness.

Another part that's undergone surgery.  I kept the distinction between programmed Traits (called Tapestry Traits in the new version) and ones developed in play (called Spark Traits) that represent true emotion and beliefs and the like.

Both have a similiar mechanic.  The level of the the Trait modifies the 1d10 Role or Self Awareness Check above in which ever direction the Trait applies in.  

For instance, if the player wanted his robot to terminate the evil Duke Rascale permanently, the GM would make a Role Check because robots are programmed to NOT do serious permanent damage to each other intentionally.  If the robot had achieved Self Awareness 4, its Role would be 6 and the GM would need to roll 1-6 to overrule the player.  

If, however, the robot has "Hate Duke Rascale" as a Spark Trait at level 3, this powerful true emotion would help the robot overcome its programming and reduce the GMs Target Number to 3.

Similiarly, if the player was trying to violate a Tapestry Trait the level of the Trait would add to the GMs TN making it easier for the robot's programming (i.e. the GM) to overrule the player.


A second mechanic available only to Spark Traits, is that the player can spend 1 Inspiration and add a number of dice equal to the level of the Trait to any roll where it applies.  So the player could gain an extra 3 dice to roll in a fight against Duke Rascale by spending an Inspiration (here's one of those temptations I mentioned).  This is, of course, highly inspired by Spiritual Attributes.

- I'm not sure, but I think the rule of being able to gain 1 Inspiration point for every one rolled is a strong temptation to min-max. If I understood correctly the quickest way to advancement is having a frequently used and very high stat (aggressive duelist, maybe) because this nets the largest number of dice to roll per session, which in turn nets the largest number of one's and hence the most inspiration. I could very well be wrong about this, though.

I've had some concern about that, but so far its mitigated by the following.

a) using the 1 for Inspiration comes at the expense of using for a success so there can be motivation to not take the Inspiration when it comes.

b) characters are intended to be someone iconic, so if the system encourages players to stick to their core competencies, that isn't completely undesired.

c) I tried to keep enough other things to use Inspiration on that players will really have the choice themselves of how quickly they want to advance up the Self Awareness scale by how much they choose to spend on other things.

d) can there really be too much Inspiration available anyway?  Its more of a pacing resource rather than a limiting one.

and finally

e) In the new Action Point system, every die roll costs one Action Point.  Action Points are a set pool (that equals the greater of the robots Role or Self Awareness) that gets refreshed with power (i.e. energy charge).

so...the goal here, is that early on when power is easy to come by, robots can spend Action Points fairly freely yet asking for frivilous or gratuitous rolls just to generate freebie Inspiration will be discouraged.  

Later in the game when power becomes harder to get (because the robot is distancing itself from the Tapestry and its communal power supply) Action Points will need to be rationed more carefully and secure sources of reliable power obtained (such as by serving a powerful patron).

[montag]

Hello Ralph, thanks for the quick response
since it seems our collective lamentations have in fact persuaded you to make some changes ;) there is very little left to comment on, especially since I'm not too comfortable with commenting on the changes without seeing them in the context of the whole game.

(1) Action Points
Will be related to charges and used up for making rolls. I understand you want to use them to tie the characters into the setting, similar to e.g. mechanical benefits from connections/contacts.
Personally I doubt that it's necessary to do so, simply because to me the setting is interesting enough as it is, so I'd want the/my characters to have deep connections anyway. I'm also slightly wary that having to keep track of Actions Points as well might make slow down play/book-keeping without necessarily providing the intended benefit. Probably impossible to tell without playtest, though.

In addition, though I haven't playtested, just read the alpha, I'd suggest redoing the dramatic editing part. IMHO it looks like a copy of the Adventure! system, which – again IMHO – makes it sub optimal for the same reasons I'm not so fond of the A! system. Your modifications actually make it worse IMHO:

This system has been completely overhauled and is now largely independent of Inspiration Points.  I'm curious, however, what you found that made it "worse"?

Mostly the points I listed below that, plus the increase in cost from A!(1,2,3,4) to RR(1,3,5 IIRC), plus connecting them to character advancement (therby further discouraging dramtic editing)

- the double use of inspiration forces players to choose between contributing to the game by dramatic editing and advancing their character. I OTOH would prefer to increase both.

There is an intentional design choice in the game to offer other uses for Inspiration that will tempt players away from using them to buy Self Awareness (...).
The choice to leave behind the old and embrace the new should not be an easy one, and there should be an opportunity cost to it.  There is an opportunity cost built into the roleplaying aspects of the setting, but I wanted a mechanical reinforcer to this concept as well.

The mechanical reinforcement was already there in the initial loss of skill IMHO. I'm generally in favour of one concept - one mechanic mappings. (btw: you might consider teaking the change in skill points a little. The initial loss is done perfectly, since it doesn't hurt too much (which would probably be too strong a violation of player expectations, i.e. advancement through play, not regression). However, once past the 5-5 divide increasing Self Awareness is a no-brainer. I wouldn't necessarily want to mess with that, since its perfectly possible for a robot to decide to help maintan the tapestry on the basis of a Self Awareness of 10 ( = on its own free will). I think it would be interesting to have something else besides the Inspiration cost to keep characters beyond the 5-5 divide but below a 0-10 divide.
The best I could come up with however was linking the increase of Self Awareness to a loss of Tapestry Traits, so that the player needs to focus on what was the primary element of his role in the tapestry and whether he wants to give up that role (by increasing self-awareness). That however would probably mean  you'd have to increase the mechanical value of Tapestry Traits (justifiable, since the Character moves with the setting rather than against it) to make the loss significant. OTOH that might mean that Spark Traits are less potent than Tapestry Traits, which seems pretty stupid.

- dramatic editing rules insufficiently account for the fact, that some players might want to use it to add to the story, not just to save their character's bacon. Your example with the letter from the count or somesuch which a player declares to be found on some trapped mooks was particularly horrifying for me in that respect. If it adds a new, interesting twist to the game, I'd say it doesn't matter either way if the letter is real or fake and I'd say players should be rewarded for coming up with such stuff, not having to sacrifice character advancement for it.
At the very least, consider making the introduction of pure complications free.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Can you be more specific about what was insufficient or horrifying?

Simple: I just love to get my characters into trouble ;) and I want to be rewarded for that. ;) More explicitly, the WW-System basically assumes the players will only use dramatic editing to help their characters, hence the high price tag. I OTOH tend to see any dramtic editing (within boundaries) as good and I'd want to encourage it whenever possible. In your example with the letter, neither dramatic editing actually brings the GM into trouble. Whether the letter is real or fake has no immediate impact, and the GM can also have the letter robbed as a last resort. So IMHO your making a distinction without a difference (real/fake) and focus too much on the plausibility effect on the games world, instead of considering the dramatic effect.
IMHO, anything that increases drama (by whatever small or large effect on "reality" in the gameworld) should be rewarded, while anything that decreases drama (cop out of any sort, no matter whether through small or large effect) should be punished (=cost more inspiration).
I hope I was more coherent this time, though I doubt it.

....This Self Awareness Check is also where the new Dramatic Control rules surface.  By making a Self Awareness check, the player gets the right to use "director stance", so no additional Inspiration needs to be spent (other than the point for making the Check). .
I'm toying with the best way to set parameters around this.  Currently I'm leaning towards a similiar Minor, Moderate, Major split only tied to the number rolled on the 1d10 check.  Rolling a 1 or better lets you narrate a Minor effect, 4 or better a Moderate one, and 7 or better a Major one.  Of course, the roll also has to succeed, so with this system you can't ever get a major effect until you achieve at least Self Awareness 7.

I'm not convinced that focusing on "effect size" is the right way to go, see above. Otherwise I really like the change. Sounds perfect.


- the new Tapestry/Sprak Trait rules sound exactly right.
- same goes for the Inspiration gains through rolling one's.


That's it, I apologise for the lack of praise *imagine divine host singing Halleluja in praise* but I'm in a hurry and wanted to address the points of "friction" first. I'm eagerly awaiting the beta.

yours
markus

[hix]

So now I'm excited about this game:

* A system for players who like being railroaded and those who like being independently motivated - and explores the transition between these two states;

* Frustration at failing a Self Awareness Check - therefore, being thwarted in what you really want - will drive players to gain Self-Awareness (an action that has consequences/costs that make them ask, "How much do you value independent thought over programming?"); and

* I'm really seeing the GM here as an AI, used to setting up adventures but now forced to deal with players who want to go off and do their own thing about the issues they care about. That split should create an interesting mindset running this game.[/list:u]
Like you say, Ralph, this stuff has always been in R&R  (which I've also just realised are pretty cool initials too) but this discussion clarified it for me. My .02 is that understanding the above points are the hook that finally makes me 'get' R&R and have started me itching to play it.

Steve.

[Valamir]

Steve, you nailed it on all three counts.

[Daniel Solis]

Well damn, I've got nothing really substantial to say except that I really like the augmentations you've made overall. Great example of sticking to a creative agenda and thus making an interesting game that works on a variety of levels. Very cool.