The Forge Archives

Hi, everyone!  I just found The Forge a few days ago and I must say I'm very impressed.  You're all very insightful and it's been a joy reading your posts these last few days.  I know I'm really going to enjoy bouncing ideas off everyone here.

I'm going to start developing a new system over the next few weeks, so I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce myself and provide everyone with a system I created back in 1993 and have used for most of my games ever since.  It's called the Heretic Conflict Resolution System and you can find a link to it on my homepage.  It's available in both Microsoft Word format and HTML format.

Next week, I'll try to post another system that I designed last year.  

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
Visit Possibilties, my roleplaying homepage.

I'm impressed, I think you'll find quite a few who share your design goals here.

Some questions:

1) why %?   Your table is all in 5% increments and there are no +/- % modifiers...why not a d20, which is built in with 5% increments?

2) why does Poor carry a negative modifer for assists and a positive modifier for resists?  It seems a bit off to me, especially given that Poor is the default.  In the horse shoe example, I may not know anything about shoeing a horse, but if the expert says "Here hold his leg while I hammer this on" (or however it works) than I'm assisting in a positive manner even though I don't know what I'm doing.

Similiarly I may be a lousy fighter but my efforts to dodge a punch aren't going to make it easier for the tough guy to hit me than if I just stood there and took it.

I know that there are some funny scenes possible where things get screwed up because of the assistance of the incompetant guy, but those scenes seem to me to be better served by narration than the type of penelties the chart gives.


3) Why is Poor the default for everything.  From Westing's description we know he is a physically tough active man.  He may not regularly beat people up in a saloon, but surely he'd be worth more in a fist fight than "poor".  Shouldn't the GM have the option of declaring "average" as the default for a character based on the character's description and related abilities even if the skill is specifically possessed?

You have some stuff ommitted or put in weird spots.

For example, what happens if due to being assisted or resisted, I go off the charts? Do you just use the highest or lowest value? So a character with an Incredible can't be helped, and a character with a Poor cannot be hampered by resistance?

The section on Wounds should be clearly marked, and the level should be decided on in CharGen, no? So it ought to be mentioned there. And I missed the effects of going to zero wounds. You say there is no character death. OK, so what happens at zero, unconciousness, incapacitation? Does the same apply for NPCs? What if I want my character to die?

Several of your rules only appear in the examples. This is a poor place to introduce them.

Mike

Hi, Valamir!  Thanks for the comments.  Let's go over your questions one at a time.

Quote1) why %? Your table is all in 5% increments and there are no +/- % modifiers...why not a d20, which is built in with 5% increments?

I decided to use 5% increments because it's the smallest unit I found that actually makes any difference in play.

I originally started using the d100 because I related very well to everything being a percentage of a total.  This helped me immensely when working through various design issues.  Of course, I've modified the actual values on the Conflict Resolution Table through the years.

Why not a d20?  I asked myself that same question once, reasoning as you did that my system was based on 5% increments anyway and that should work very well with a d20.  In practice, the d20 just didn't provide me as large a range of results as did the d100.  I tested this using several d20s and several d10s over thousands of rolls and found that the d100 just provided better random results.  I'm not a math wiz, so I won't venture a guess as to why, but the d100 suited the system much better in the end.

Quote2) why does Poor carry a negative modifer for assists and a positive modifier for resists? It seems a bit off to me, especially given that Poor is the default. In the horse shoe example, I may not know anything about shoeing a horse, but if the expert says "Here hold his leg while I hammer this on" (or however it works) than I'm assisting in a positive manner even though I don't know what I'm doing.

This can be very confusing when you're trying to think this through, so I'll do my best to explain the logic I used.  

The first thing you have to understand is that the system is very abstract and doesn't try to simulate reality the way Rolemaster tried (with it's hundreds of critical hit charts that tried to quantify what the human mind can easily come up with on the spot).  Even after the advances we've made in computer science, we still cannot accurately simulate a real environment.  I knew that I could not accurately simulate reality in my system, so I didn't try.  I used a basic set of personal observations to form the abstractions for the system.

The Poor Rank can also be considered the same as Unskilled.  When an unskilled person is assisting someone of a higher skill, the unskilled person often makes "beginner's mistakes" that actually hinder the more skilled person.  For example:  Bob, who's unskilled in pottery (aka Poor Rank), is trying to help Wilma, a professional potter (aka Excellent Rank), finish a large clay cactus pot.  Bob, trying his very best, ends up pushing too hard on the clay and caving it in slightly.  Wilma smiles and fixes it.  A little bit later, he leans in too close and his apron string catches on the side of the pot and makes a mark on it.  Sighing, Wilma fixes that mistake too.  This continues until the process is finished.  The result is a serviceable pot (Complete Success), but it's the not the masterwork that Wilma might have been able to complete on her own.

Conversely, when an unskilled person is resisting someone, the unskilled person often makes "beginner's mistakes" that actually help the person they are resisting.  For example:  Bob, a green belt in Judo (aka Good Rank, is sparring with Gary, a new student (aka Poor Rank).  Bob pushes on Gary's gi jacket and Gary automatically pushes towards Bob to maintain his balance (instead of just stepping back and pulling Bob with him).  Gary just made a classic beginner's mistake that Bob takes advantage of.  As Gary pushes toward him, Bob steps back and throws Gary cleanly to the mat (a Complete Success).

The terms "Assist" and "Resist" are also abstractions.  When I use the term "Assist", I'm referring to someone trying to actually provide help with the activity, not just handing someone the tools or holding a horse's leg up.  

In your example of shoeing the horse, I wouldn't consider the person holding the horse's leg helping unless he was also offering advice ("No, no ... you don't do it like that!  Here, give me the hammer.  Now hold that damn horse still!").

As another example, I wouldn't consider a nurse actually assisting a doctor if she just handed him his instruments, unless she also rolled up her sleeves and clamped a severed artery.  

Granted, I didn't make that clear in the write-up, but please understand this was my first serious attempt at providing this system in only written form.  In the past, I've always been able to explain most of this verbally when I was face-to-face with the GM wanting to learn the system.  

QuoteSimiliarly I may be a lousy fighter but my efforts to dodge a punch aren't going to make it easier for the tough guy to hit me than if I just stood there and took it.

You're thinking in terms of simulating reality again instead of an abstraction.  If you just stood there and took it, you'd have 100% chance of being clobbered because I wouldn't even have you roll the dice for it.  Your decision made the result happen.  

But if you're a Poor fighter (or an Unskilled fighter), then you will leave various openings that another fighter will take advantage of.  Perhaps you misjudged your distance and stepped into a punch when you thought you could reach him first, or you fall for a feint and duck right into his uppercut.

QuoteWhy is Poor the default for everything. From Westing's description we know he is a physically tough active man. He may not regularly beat people up in a saloon, but surely he'd be worth more in a fist fight than "poor".

Poor (or Unskilled) is the default because the player didn't find it important enough to his central character concept to provide him with a higher skill.  If the player thought John should be tougher in a fight, it should have come out during character creation.  In reality, a player and a GM often discuss the concept and get a very good understanding of what the character is capable before the list of what he can do is completed.

John Westing may indeed be a hardy man from his time on the ranch, but that doesn't mean he's good in a fist fight.  A tough guy that spends several times a week getting involved in barroom brawls doesn't make the same "beginner's mistakes" that John does.

QuoteShouldn't the GM have the option of declaring "average" as the default for a character based on the character's description and related abilities even if the skill is specifically possessed?

Of course the GM can decide to do this.  Every GM worth his salt makes a decision to use a system as is or to alter it.  I have presented the way I use it.  If I had intended this to be picked up a by a new GM and used, I would have written it in an entirely different style.  

I originally made this system available so that a person in the Yahoo RPG Writer's Group could see that a single table system based on percentages can work.  I never intended to publish this system as is, but I did whip it together in three days so that person could get an idea of the concept.  

I posted it here so that everyone could see some of the design philosphies I've used in the past.  Hopefully, it will give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from as I post in the future.  

If someone is really interested in using this system, I will take the time to re-write it in a better format.  I'd just hate to do spend that much time on it if there isn't any interest in it.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

Hi, Mike!  Thanks for the comments.  I do appreciate them.  

You're 100 percent correct that the layout is a bit odd.  I will work to correct that as I edit it.  

QuoteFor example, what happens if due to being assisted or resisted, I go off the charts? Do you just use the highest or lowest value? So a character with an Incredible can't be helped, and a character with a Poor cannot be hampered by resistance?

You cannot go above the highest or lowest value on the table.  I had to draw the line somewhere and this is where I decided to draw it.  Not everyone will agree with me, but the system does work quite well during play.  I could have spent hours trying to quantify exactly how much assistance an Incredible Ranked character can get, or how much more a Poor Ranked character can be hampered, but I decided it wasn't worth the minor payback it would have given.  The system is simpler and just plays better without it.

QuoteThe section on Wounds should be clearly marked, and the level should be decided on in CharGen, no? So it ought to be mentioned there.

Noted.  I'll take that into account the next time I edit it.

QuoteAnd I missed the effects of going to zero wounds. You say there is no character death. OK, so what happens at zero, unconciousness, incapacitation?

If a character goes to zero wounds, he is no longer capable of action.  The exact form this takes is up to the GM.  The character could be knocked out if he was punched or clubbed, or in shock holding the bullet wound if he was shot.  The GM is free to decide what best fits the situation.

QuoteDoes the same apply for NPCs?

Again, it's up to the GM to describe what is appropriate to the situation.  GMs can kill all the NPCs off that they want.  I can (almost) guarantee you that the GM will never be sued by the NPCs family for wrongful death.

Personally, I like to use recurring villians, so the players may think he's dead only to find him at the head of another nasty plot in a few weeks.  

QuoteWhat if I want my character to die?

I would suggest you roleplay it to the hilt and earn the admiration of the other players as you bring tears to their eyes.  Any good GM would let your character die if that's what you wish.  The choice is yours as a player, but it's your responsibility to let your GM know that's what you want.

QuoteSeveral of your rules only appear in the examples. This is a poor place to introduce them.

Noted.  I'll also take that into account the next time I edit it.

I originally made this system available so that a person in the Yahoo RPG Writer's Group could see that a single table system based on percentages can work. I never intended to publish this system as is, but I did whip it together in three days so that person could get an idea of the concept.

If someone is really interested in using this system, I will take the time to re-write it in a better format. I'd just hate to do spend that much time on it if there isn't any interest in it.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

OK, our mistake sorta. We assumed that by posting the system here that you wanted to discuss it. If I read you correctly, now, what you really intended was just to give us an idea of your design style, right? That's fine, but you should have said so specifically in your original post, or cut us off after the first attempt.

So how related is the new system? When can we see it? To be very technical, this post probably goes against the policy at the top of the forum. You should probably have waited until you had your actual system that you are working on ready to display.

But, FWIW, welcome anyhow.

Mike

Quote from: RoyAny good GM would let your character die if that's what you wish.  The choice is yours as a player, but it's your responsibility to let your GM know that's what you want.

I have to make one more comment here and mention that this sort of remark doesn't carry any weight around here. You made several of them. If you want to know why it doesn't carry much weight then read this:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/system_does_matter.html

Mike

Hi Roy,

And welcome to the Forge. As long as policy has been brought up, I'll say that your post was perfectly appropriate (and I'm the guy who gets to say so, by the way, not anyone else).

I'm interested in what you think, now, about your Heretic system - it's been almost ten years, right? How has it worked out for you? What various things did it solve at the time, and what various things cropped up since then? How about how other people, in use, have reacted to aspects of the system, and how that's changed elements of your play, or thoughts on design for the future?

All of Ralph's and Mike's comments are relevant to that set of questions, so we all can consider them in that light.

Best,
Ron

The reason I mentioned it Ron is that if you read closely, he seems to imply that the game is not open for discussion (as opposed to his new one that he'll have soon). I just didn't want to pressure him into defending an old game system that he just displayed for information's sake. The policy says:

QuoteAll threads started in Indie Game Design should be about either the process of designing a game, or a game you are actually designing.

So if he really doesn't want to talk about Heretic, then it's not really (like I said, "technically") appropriate. Not a big deal in any case.

That said, he has responded, so maybe he's changed his mind. Which is it Roy? Is this system open for comment, or should we wait for the new one?

Mike

'Scuse me, but if people have a problem with my reading of appropriateness, they can contact me about it privately. I've taken Mike's comments to that venue.

Meanwhile, my apologies to you, Roy. This is your thread. Folks, if you want to chat with Roy about Heretic, go for it.

Best,
Ron

I have a thing about % dice (i.e. I hate them).  I agree with you 100% (heh) that you can't really justify differences smaller than 5%.  Slicing things into 1% increments just seems pointless to me.  That said, unless you're using flawed dice, the odds of rolling a 20 are identical to the odds of rolling 96-100.  

As far as the assist resist thing goes.  I understand completely what your doing and the level of abstraction your going for.  But it seems to me (on the surface, obviously you have much more experience with the game than I who've read it once) that attempting to assist someone while I'm "Poor" is pointless, meaning I'd never do it, meaning most people would never do it, meaning if noone uses it why have a rule for it.

I'd be tempted to add another die roll into the mix.  If I'm assisting I make a roll first.  My level of success would then determine the additions to the other persons roll rather than a fixed amount at all times.  Outstanding +3, Complete +2, Parital +1, Failure +0, Horrible Failure -1.

What that would do is allow for the fun moments where Bob ruins the Pot (15% chance of Horrible Failure at poor) while still allowing a good chance of Bob actually being usefull.  Useful in the sense that he can go get more clay, refill the water, and do other assorted stuff allowing the potter to finish that much quicker.  This is after all the benefit that craftsmen got to having an apprentice.  Yeah the 7 year old kid isn't exactly going to help me forge my sword, but he can stoke the fire and work the bellows and that makes my job as a blacksmith easier.  Just a thought.

As for the default level, you and I would come to different conclusions about Westin's value in a fight.  So I'd suggest making the GM's ability to set the default value explicit the next time you right it up.

Personally, I'd do it a little differently.  I'd probably have MOST things default to Average, unless the description specifies they're particularly bad at it.  As is stands "John is a lousy fighter" doesn't really have a place in your character creation system because whether he says this or not he's going to wind up "poor".  Just another stray thought.

All in all I think it looks pretty solid.  I prefer my games a bit crunchier, but its certainly workable.

Hey, thanks for the warm welcome guys.  And don't be too hard on Mike, Ron ... he makes me feel like I'm back with my old gaming buddies in Illinois. <smiles>

I'm going to respond to Mike in this message and then I'll answer your questions a little while later, Ron.  You asked some very good and insightful questions that I'd love to answer.

QuoteThe reason I mentioned it Ron is that if you read closely, he seems to imply that the game is not open for discussion (as opposed to his new one that he'll have soon). I just didn't want to pressure him into defending an old game system that he just displayed for information's sake.

I'm sorry if I implied that, Mike.  I most certainly do welcome comment on Heretic and will gladly answer any questions anyone has on it.  I think just the process of answering those questions will help me with future designs.  

As for your concern about pressuring me to defend an old game system ... thank you for that consideration.  I really appreciate that.  I'm sorry if I came off defensive on those posts.  I certainly didn't intend to.  

I don't feel like I am having to defend it as much as answer legitimate questions about the design philosophy I subscribed to when I created it.  As we're all game designers here, I think that discussion is very appropriate and helpful even to casual readers of this thread.

I'm sorry that I didn't communicate as well as I thought I had.  It's very difficult presenting something you know inside out without missing a few details you think should be obvious.  Unfortunately, I have to use this imprecise language we call English instead of just beaming the ideas over to you directly.  I'm sure everyone here will help me become a better writer as a result.

Mike, I'm also sorry Heretic had so many holes in it.  I will edit it for the next draft as I've stated previously.  I tried to answer as many of the questions I could anticipate, but I knew there would ultimately be questions that I had not anticipated.  I'll try to answer them all as constructively as I can.  

QuoteAll threads started in Indie Game Design should be about either the process of designing a game, or a game you are actually designing.

Well, Heretic is a game I designed, so I'm sure that's close enough (thanks Ron!).  Sure the writing could be better, but the system was complete.  Besides, sometimes you just have to push the edge a bit. :-)

QuoteThat said, he has responded, so maybe he's changed his mind. Which is it Roy? Is this system open for comment, or should we wait for the new one?

To quote Pat Benetar, "Hit Me With Your Best Shot."  I love to discuss game design and this is a golden opportunity to do it with a talented bunch.  I hope we'll all walk (or limp) away from it with a better understanding of game design in general.

QuoteRoy wrote:
Any good GM would let your character die if that's what you wish. The choice is yours as a player, but it's your responsibility to let your GM know that's what you want.

Mike wrote:  I have to make one more comment here and mention that this sort of remark doesn't carry any weight around here. You made several of them. If you want to know why it doesn't carry much weight then read this: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/system_does_matter.html

It's funny that you should refer me to Ron's article.  That article was one of the first things I read on the site that made me realize I've found a new home.  I agree with almost everything stated in that article, by the way.  

However, my comment still stands as is.  Sure, it's my opinion (as is everything else I write).  But it's also a personal observation I've made from years and years in the hobby (I think it's been 21 years now ... sigh, I really AM getting old!).  

A good GM (regardless of whether he's a Narrativist, Gamist, or Simulationist) understands that player satisfaction is a key element in the enjoyment of a roleplaying game.  I have never met a good GM that will force a player to continue playing a character he no longer enjoys.  If a GM does that, he's usually missing a player within a week or two.

Now the way an old character is phased out and a new character is brought in is usually handled differently by the three outlooks.  

For example, a Narrativist GM will often help create a scene that will allow the player to kill the character in a way that is appropriate to the story, usually involving a final blaze of glory.  A smart Narrativist GM will use this golden opportunity to add drama and tension to his game as the adversary that killed the player's character now becomes the most hated villian in his world.  The new character is often brought in a little later in that session as a rescued prisoner, an old ally, or what not.

A Gamist GM, however, will usually ask the player to create a new character of roughly the same power level (depending on system, of course) and ask him to hold onto it until the old character actually dies according to the system.  A smart Gamist GM will then scale the power level of a few encounters up until the old character is killed.  The new character is often introduced at the start of the next session by briefly summarizing why he is now with the group.

QuoteI have to make one more comment here and mention that this sort of remark doesn't carry any weight around here. You made several of them.

I have to disagree with you here.  My opinions carry as much weight as ANYONE else's opinion.  You may disagree with them as you wish, but you cannot undermine their value by doing so.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

Roy, this is fine work.

I don't mind that abilities default to poor, if you were to make it clear that any ability that is mentioned in play is only being mentioned because its use is being judged at the level of a professional or specialized or notable skill. I think that's more or less what you had in mind, but perhaps you could check me on it. And if it is, then you should be able to make that clearer in the next edit.

For example, if I don't mention that my character can write, it would be assumed that he could write about as well as the average person in the milieu. If he tried to write a newspaper column, though, he'd be "poor" at it, just as the average person would be. Since the check would only be made if the character attempts to do something out of the ordinary, like write for a newspaper, that's why the system refers to it as "poor." Similarly, if my Western character is "poor" at horse riding, that just means that he'd be poorer at it than those who ride the range all day and/or have notable riding skills, not that he'd be any worse off than the average townsperson. Or if I'm a "poor" chef, that doesn't mean I burn my lunch every day, it just means that if I tried to perform a notable culinary feat like cook a fancy dinner for 12 or work as an assistant chef in a restaurant, I'd be pretty bad at it.

If that's true, though, what do I do if I want my character to be really truly bad at something? Like, he's such a bad chef that he usually does burn the hard-boiled eggs, or he can't stay on a horse at any faster than a walk? It's often very interesting when circumstances call on someone to try anyway. Would you just play it as automatic failure?

- Walt

Hey, good to see you back posting again, Valamir!

QuoteI have a thing about % dice (i.e. I hate them).

I'm not overly fond of them myself, but they can be useful in certain situations.  Even if I'm not "in love" with a tool, I have learned that sometimes you need to use a tool you don't necessarily like if it will get the job done.  Kind of like a Mac if your PC is broke.  <Just kidding.  Please don't flame me on this ... it was just a little joke.>

QuoteSlicing things into 1% increments just seems pointless to me.

Exactly.  If your system is that detailed, you really need to test the usability of it before you fall in love wih it.  For some reason, Rolemaster keeps popping up in my mind. <grins>

QuoteThat said, unless you're using flawed dice, the odds of rolling a 20 are identical to the odds of rolling 96-100.

Well, in a perfect world, you're correct.  But when I actually tested this theory using several different d20s and d10s from several different manufacturers overly literally thousands of rolls, it didn't hold true.  There are subtle differences in the way the dice work and it does skew the odds in the long run.  

Of course, it could just have been me ... I am known to curse all dice I touch.  My wife thought I was kidding until she saw it in action.  I can't even get a break with electronic dice (just rolled 5 ones in a row the other day on a computerized version of Clue).  

What's really funny about this is that I actually went to the extreme of creating a version of the Heretic Conflict Resolution Table that took my bad luck into account (thinking there just had to be a few people like me in the world).  The player would roll a d100 and a d6 together.  If the d6 came up odd, then the d100 was an Outstanding Success on 01 through 05.  If the d6 came up even, then the d100 was an Outstanding Success on 96 through 100.  Pathetic?  Absolutely.  But it worked.  And it also cut down on those players that thought they might want to use dice that just happened to roll high more often than not. <winks>

QuoteAs far as the assist resist thing goes. I understand completely what your doing and the level of abstraction your going for. But it seems to me (on the surface, obviously you have much more experience with the game than I who've read it once) that attempting to assist someone while I'm "Poor" is pointless, meaning I'd never do it, meaning most people would never do it, meaning if noone uses it why have a rule for it.

Here's where a glaring omission of mine makes for a confusing situation.  You're exactly right in what you state.  

However, when I run a game using the Heretic system, the players know a system is providing them with results, but they don't ever see under the hood.  They roll the dice and I announce the results.  They never realize that a Poor Rank hurts the character they're assisting because they don't ever see the chart.  I left this out of the version I put up for download because I felt this was more of a GM style issue.  I hadn't thought of it in the light that you mentioned.  Thanks for pointing that out.

QuoteI'd be tempted to add another die roll into the mix. If I'm assisting I make a roll first. My level of success would then determine the additions to the other persons roll rather than a fixed amount at all times. Outstanding +3, Complete +2, Parital +1, Failure +0, Horrible Failure -1.

Actually, that's a very elegant solution.  I think I'll incorporate that into any future versions.  Thank you for the idea.  

At the time I designed it, I was just so sick of rolling tons of dice and seeing them all turn up 1s that I decided one roll was enough.  I think part of me also wanted to see if I could accomplish it.

QuoteAs for the default level, you and I would come to different conclusions about Westin's value in a fight. So I'd suggest making the GM's ability to set the default value explicit the next time you right it up.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I will be sure to include this the next time I update the document.

QuoteAll in all I think it looks pretty solid. I prefer my games a bit crunchier, but its certainly workable.

I can appreciate that.  In some ways, I do too now.  But overall, the system has worked beautifully for me and some other people.  I think the excercise of just creating it made me a better GM and game designer because it forced me to understand what was really important in the roleplaying experience to many different types of people.  

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

Hi, wfreitag!  Thank you for the compliment and the comments.

QuoteFor example, if I don't mention that my character can write, it would be assumed that he could write about as well as the average person in the milieu. If he tried to write a newspaper column, though, he'd be "poor" at it, just as the average person would be. Since the check would only be made if the character attempts to do something out of the ordinary, like write for a newspaper, that's why the system refers to it as "poor."

Bingo!  You win the cupie doll!  Actually, that's exactly the way I saw it.  Thanks to the excellent feedback here, I now realize I should have made that explicitly clear.  I will be sure to clarify this in the next edit.

QuoteIf that's true, though, what do I do if I want my character to be really truly bad at something? Like, he's such a bad chef that he usually does burn the hard-boiled eggs, or he can't stay on a horse at any faster than a walk? It's often very interesting when circumstances call on someone to try anyway. Would you just play it as automatic failure?

When I first designed the system, I saw this issue as requiring more roleplaying on the part of the player than a need for it in the system.  As I've aged, I do see more of a need for it in the system itself as well.  There are a lot of concepts in this system that I do like and will try to incorporate in future projects, but I'm moving past this system into something with more meat.  

QuoteWould you just play it as automatic failure?

Personally as a GM, I would still have them use the Poor Rank and make an Action Check, then vary my description to take into account the character concept.  Yes, this does place some extra burden on the GM, but remember that I designed this as my own personal system, not to be sold.  If I were doing this as a commercial product, I would have approached it differently.  Still, it has some interesting design concepts that I think can be useful to other game designers.

Again, thanks for the comments.  I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com