To some extent prompted by the Ronnies action, I started to think of how I'd pull together a game in 24 hours. I'm still not sure I could manage it. But thinking about how I could was and still is a creative focus that brings these ideas together.

What the game would be about: I'm not really sure - more of an action lover than a setting lover. Shockingly, probably a rip off hybred between Rifts and the PS2 games Mercenaries foremost and a fair bit of Grand Theft Auto.

What the players do: Full on gamism! In a game world full of elements that can help or harm or sometimes both, the players declare their own tactical goal that they think they can meet - and try their damnedest to meet it! Unlike a TROS where the narrativist goal is set and then play is about testing the PC's resolution over and over, here it the encouragement isn't on long term goals. The moment of drama is when a player has the balls (and that includes ovaries!!) to say "I can meet goal X" and the other players go whoa, cause their thinking "How the hell does he think he can do that - I don't think I could do it! Or could I? If he can perhaps I could! I must see what comes of this!" and other such thoughts. So lots of goals would be made and resolved over and over each session, with mechanics which let each player egg on the player who made a goal, to possibly make an even grander goal. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I just have an idea for resolution right now.

Hunter resolution
This involves a set number of resources available, say about five for now. If it were applied to foraging in a forest, you might have resources like "mushrooms", "poison frog", "Nice dry firewood", etc. All of these will have fixed mechanical values/benefits, rather than their value as a currency being up to GM speculation. Listed, it'd look something like this:

1. "mushrooms"
2. "poison frog"
3. "Nice dry firewood"
4. "birds nest"
5. "flowing water"

Okay, narration of the forest and what it looks like occurs pretty much as in your standard game. I'm planning to also have the system ask players to add to the description. Their narration isn't supposed to carry any mechanical weight, it's simply to take some creative effort off the GM's shoulders. It also intended to engender a sense of group buy in (sort of like everyone helping to set the table for a meal would). I'm interested to hear thoughts on what would happen if players add stuff like "There's a pond full of poisonous frogs", where the player assumes some sort of benefit will/ought to by right come to him if such a description is given (ie, he thinks the benefit WILL be poisonous frogs, because of the sheer strength of his assertion).

Important: Although the narration has no mechanical weight, it will naturally revolve around what everyone thinks about the resources involved and what will be there in the game world. This is bound to have a flow on effect on the GM's choice (detailed further down).

Okay, onto resolution. When do we stop narrating and we get into resolution? I haven't worked out mechanics for that yet - I'm basically looking at/treating each resolution like an independent mini game, for now. How they are connected up to form a larger game latter will be very important, because IMO, if they appear to be connected but really it's a series of mini games with a GM trying to uphold an illusion of a greater game, it wont meet my needs. But more on this issue from me when I get to it or someone brings it up.

Resolution involves the GM picking one of the resources involved to be the resource which is more likely to be available. It get's something like a 75% chance of being there. All the other resources have a base chance of say 15% chance of being there. The GM writes/notes this secretly, because were going old school on this. Whatever the GM chooses stays that way once the player makes his choice.

From the earlier example, if the GM chose "Dry firewood" as the resource available, then it'd look like this (the players don't get to see it though):
1. "mushrooms" : 15%
2. "poison frog" : 15%
3. "Nice dry firewood" : 75%
4. "birds nest" : 15%
5. "flowing water" : 15%

And then the player chooses from the list, which resource he thinks is there. If it's the one the GM chose, the GM says so (congrats!) and the player has a 75% chance of getting it. If the player chooses a resource other than that, there's still a 15% chance of getting the resource the player called, anyway.

In a strange way, the 15% chance is reminiscent of fact creation systems like in Donjon. If you think there are mushrooms in the forest, in a way your empowered to sometimes be right. However, perhaps controversially it's actually there to screw with the feedback the GM gets in regards to who's empowered to say exactly what is happening. I hypothesise that if the GM had full control over which resource is there (ie, only his choice exists) along with the expectant crowd factor, he might slip into simulationism, treating it as his moment to make an address about what exists. Rather than just make a call about it in order to support gamism.

A parallel is if the resource choices were instead about ways of convincing someone, a narrativist inclined GM with full control might feel protagonised enough to say to himself "Well, they'd simply have to meet his "perform virtuous deed" requirement. He just wouldn't be convinced by anything else!". With the 15% factor, a player might choose "Small bribe", roll lucky and go "Oh cool, it's all right, he's happy to take a bribe". Same goes for any move to make a simulationist address of how things work/causality. It removes the protagonisation that comes from the power to exactly choose what's important at that moment. Likewise, the 75% chance rather than 100% chance furthers this, ensuring the GM's choice doesn't simply outweigh the others.

This theory mangles GNS theory a great deal, as I've been told before you can't have 'pockets' of one agenda inside another. Basically I want to convey the idea that a fly can get in the soup of gamism. And I'm certain that fly comes from another agenda's motivations/desires. It's drawn to the soup because certain parts of it smell really nice, as if it had been made for the fly. Regardless of how much you can agree, I would like feedback on how different a "75%/15% chance" is Vs a "100%/0% chance", in terms of how it would feel to yourselves as a GM. What would you enjoy about it? What wouldn't you enjoy about it?

Seeker Resolution
Essentially the same as above, but more of an active pursuit angle on the players part. Say the scenario is that ooh, you’re a psi guy with a massive psi sword, perched hidden above where an enemy tank is rolling along below. You've already declared to the group, that psi-swords are "awesome" and are out to find out just how right you are (your confident). Now, unlike in the above where there were several prize types, here there is only one. In this case it's some big damage. We still work with a fixed number of options to choose from, like in the above. But this time they can simply be narrated, like each option is described as a certain part of the tank. Again, I think I'd have player input on some of these options, for the same reasons as above.

Then the player chooses which one of the options he takes/which one he attacks with his psi sword, with the same 75% on the GM's choice/15% on everything else distribution.

And that's it. Given the number of Ronnies entries judged to have palour narration, I want to know if that applies to this very mechanised structure as well?

I'm also thinking I could hinge a whole game around this mechanic and it'd be enough. Is it missing something it'd need to forfil this role, that I don't realise?

Any bits that make you think "What's THAT there for?".

So, what happens when a player fails a roll?

Interesting mechanic, however I am a bit confused as to how the list comes into existence.  Does the GM provide the list and choose what he thinks should be the best choice, do the player's create it and the GM picks one, do they both help, or did I miss it entirely?

Hi Joe,

The event is resolved, the result being that you don't get the prize.

Hi Nogusielkt,

I didn't expect to have to cover that - perceptive question! Currently in my mind the lists should be preset; listed in the book. Basically if you can construct the list to any degree, your more protagonised to say exactly what is there (because you have more capacity to set it to 'just how you imagine the game world works'). Right now I want fixed lists for that reason, though it might be interesting to allow players the option to randomise one of the options to something else, to add a little spin on what could be available.

As a sneak peak, I envision the larger game involving many option lists and the way you (try to) get to each one is actually though hunter resolution (each hunter option list has a name, which itself becomes an option to choose from in a hunter resolution).

Hi!
  OK, To answer thhe first question, I like the 75/15 vs 100/0, I think having some chance will allow for more natural game play.
  I don't think I understand what you mean by protagonize... Are you trying to say the GM will be more sympathetic with the PCs if there is a a pre-determined list? Or are you trying to say the GM will feel more justified in playing games against the players if the rules are set forth?
  Also, I am no wiz on the whole GNS thing, but it was my understanding that every game was a clever combination of all three agendas, the question is always at what ratio during which parts of the system. I could be WAY off, but that was my understanding.
  I think that these lists could really detract from play. It almost feels like you are creating a solo game that could be used multi-player. I mean if you know what you need, you just have to travel to the area(s) that provide it and wander around til you get the right roll. I also wonder if you are not making a simulation, if you make a list, then players can only find what you deem possible. And GMs might be encouraaged to represent those 5 items in a simulationist matter. To use your forest example, what GM with such an accurate portrayal of your game world would ever pick anything besides flowing water as the 75% choice? I mean how can you have a forest if there is no water? You can have a forest with no mushrooms, you can have a forest with no poison frogs, cetainly dry fire wood is hard to find in a forest and finding a bird's nest is tricky as most birds don't want them to be found. But every tree needs water to survive...
  I am not trying to dog on you, I am just asking the question, is this Gamism? and is THAT your goal? I thought Gamism was defined by receiving a mechanical reward based on risk/effort? I THINK a Gamist system would center around what mechanical benefit a player receives for an item after they find it and then the GM setting the risk/effort required based on THIS rather than on the effort/risk it would require normally in that setting or by the needs of the story...
  Anyways, most RPG Gamers are pretty creative and will want a means to effect the world around them. For instance, what about the player who decides that poison frogs are a menace to all good people and goes on a crusade. The way the system is designed now, that is futile, there will ALWAYS be at least a 15% chance of having Poisonous Frogs in a Forest. And yet man was able to hunt Dodoes and buffalo to extinction...
  I think you have a great foundation though, good luck man!

On a practical note, composing lists for every setting/situation in existence is probably way too much work, and also quite inflexible. By defining, even loosely, what can and cannot be found in a certain environment, it sounds more simmy to me. The menu of options is prescribed by the book. Players and GMs can be pretty creative - don't get me wrong, I like the notion of co-determined and simultaneously randomised setting elements, but I would trust the players/GM to be able to compose their own list of options. I mean - in most traditional games, GMs do this everyday.

Why can't the player's create the list, the GM fix probabilities, and go from there (one cuts, the other chooses - works for squabbling kids).

As a perhaps completely mistaken observation, it seems a little like you are trying to prevent GM fiat/abuse/favouritism - in order to make the game 'fair' (and hence the challenges valid, so that beating your enemy is actually worth something). This is super-important to how I percieve gamism (and similar to what I am trying to do as well), but... I can't remember where I was reading this (somewhere around here, I'm a lousy referencer), but it's more or less impossible to stop GM abuse - it's all in the social contract. If your GM is going to fudge die rolls, rewrite percentages after die rolls, interpret ambiguous rules to get what he wants (for the players benefit or otherwise) there's not much you can really do about it. Same goes with balancing the possible options. Rulebooks imply a level of impartiality, but they are just as easily manipulable as anything else (the more complex, the better). Who is to decide if you are in a Haunted Wood or a Dark Wood or an Elvish Wood as far as the lists are concerned? The GM....

Or perhaps I am missing the point. I'd love to hear more.

Sorry... just got the bit regarding making the choice of list also another part of Hunter resolution.... that makes list choice slightly easier. I'd still love to hear more though.

Heya,

Callan, wouldn't your game require an extraordinary amount of preset lists just to cover the *basics* of geographical and inter-personal contests there might be?  Just off the top of my head I can conceive of 30 places where a list like your would be necessary let alone combat possilbilities.

Peace,

-Troy

This thread inspired some thoughts.

What if instead of fixed lists you had fixed effects like "Food Source", "Potion Ingredient", "Combat Attack Bonus", "Shelter", "Combat Defense Bonus", "Valuable Resource" etc. each of which could have degrees (e.g. Common, Uncommon, Rare Potion Ingredients)

Then you could create the lists by having each player add one (or two depending on how many players) things to the list.  The thing could narratively be anything they want but they'd have to link it to one of the standard effects so that no matter what they described it as, the effect is the same.  That eliminates the need to have premade lists for every situation and allows for variety. 

For instance One player could say "Poison Frog: Uncommon Potion Ingredient" or "Poison Frog: Major Damage Bonus"

Then players could compete in some fashion for the right to select something off of the list to try for.  Character abilities (either as resources to bid, dice to roll, or scores to roll against etc.) would determine which player gets to choose from the list, but the degree (common, uncommon, minor, major, etc) would determine the chance of it actually being there if the player wins.  In this way combining multiple effects into a single item would simply increase the degree and thus decrease the chance of it being there.

Example: 

GM: On your way to Millerton you travel through a old dark forest.  There is an opportunity to search here.

Player 1 the assassin:  I want to find some Poison Frogs that are found in this area because I can use them to poison my blade - I'll go for a Minor Damage Bonus.

Player 2 the ranger:  I want to hunt down a stag to replentish our rations - I'll go for a Major Food Source

Player 3 the mage:  I want to search for the rare Dusk Mushroom, its both a Rare Potion Ingredient and a Highly Valuable Commodity

Player 4 the cleric:  Ummm old dark forests sound like a great place to get ambushed.  I want to search for a camp site that will provide Minor Shelter and also a Major Defense Bonus.

The GM then determines what skills the players roll.  The assassin might roll against Animal Lore, or Poison Craft or the like; the ranger makes a Hunting roll, the mage a Foraging roll, the cleric a Survival or a Tactics roll or the like.  Whoever wins then has a chance to find what they were looking for.  If the Assassin wins he'll have a fair chance of getting his Poison Frogs because the bonus is only minor.  If the Mage wins the chance of getting the mushrooms will be small because it is both Rare and Highly Valuable.

Something like that anyway...

Callan, is there any way for the players to figure out what the most likely resource is?  I mean, if I'm in that forest and there's lots and lots of dead wood suitable for firewood lying all around me, do I get that information, or do I get "you're in a forest" and then I have to guess which one the GM thinks is most likely?

Oooooh... hey, you don't need a GM for this.  Each player proposes the one-or-two resources to generate the master list, and then every player writes down the three that they think are the most likely to be found on little slips of paper, and then toss all of them into a hat.  A player can then declare, "I'm looking for the mushrooms!" and draw a slip of paper from the hat.  If it's mushrooms, he gets his mushrooms.  If it's something else, he gets nothing.

(Admittedly I can't see a good way to prevent every player from choosing the thing he wants to find -- I'm sure another clever Forgie can untangle that part, though.)

Callan S:

Sorry my question sucked. What I'm really trying to figure out is when I, the player, blow a roll, what happens after I don't get my choice?

The way Hunter resolution is written down there, it looks like we just move on to whatever might happen next anyway. Is it possible that I might just call for another Hunter resolution? Can that only happen at the beginning of a scene? Can I just go off and start a new scene, to give me a second shot at those poison mushrooms? (Hey, we're playing to win here, right?)

What happens after Psi Guy whiffs against the tank in Seeker resolution? I'm guessing he'll do this multiple times, since he'll probably have a 15% success rate. Does the tank get a Seeker resolution against Psi Guy? If it does, won't this make any sort of contest basically balanced, as long as the two contestants are able to defeat the other? The main ways of giving yourself an advantage would be the favor of the GM, trying to force the GM to choose an option that you like, or mind reading the GM if all options are favorable to the character.

Hi Joe (and this applies to one of Dave's first questions about 'wandering around till you get what you want'),

All valid questions. But remember were just looking at one resolution for now.

Callan wrote: When do we stop narrating and we get into resolution? I haven't worked out mechanics for that yet - I'm basically looking at/treating each resolution like an independent mini game, for now.

I also wonder if you are not making a simulation, if you make a list, then players can only find what you deem possible. And GMs might be encouraaged to represent those 5 items in a simulationist matter.

I THINK a Gamist system would center around what mechanical benefit a player receives for an item after they find it and then the GM setting the risk/effort required based on THIS rather than on the effort/risk

Callan, is there any way for the players to figure out what the most likely resource is? I mean, if I'm in that forest and there's lots and lots of dead wood suitable for firewood lying all around me, do I get that information, or do I get "you're in a forest" and then I have to guess which one the GM thinks is most likely?

Callan wrote:
I don't want the games centre of wonderful fun revolving around making the game world. When I as the author say I will be making these lists, it's not because I'm saying "I'll have all the simmy fun of defining this world! Just me!". I'm instead saying "I'm doing this so no one has fun making the world! Because that's not the point of the game! It's not the thing that's supposed to be fun, so I'm removing that fun.".

Big question: Does that description shift the games intent dramatically?

Hi!
  The reason I said Sim was because it seems like the emphasis of game play is to reproduce the game world as you see it as opposed to mechanical advantages or disadvantages.
  And I think your premise is flawed, no matter how much detail you put in, the players are going to have to create a little more than what you put. The act of describing a scene is not simulation and describing the elements of the scene for the players does not remove the simulation. In other words, you can't make a game more gamist by removing some simulation aspects. You make it more gamist by creating a mechanic that rewards players in game terms rather than in story or setting terms. In my mind, a Gamist solution would be to have some sort of wildlife survival or forestry skill, roll on that and the better you roll, the more stuff from that list you can gather. See the gameplay focuses on the mechanics and the mechanics gfocus on the game play in a gamist mode.
  I could be all upside down here, but you asked so I explained it.
  I don't thik you have a bad idea or that you are even executing it wrong. But to say it is gamist focused or to say you are malking the players focus on playing the game rather than simulating the world you have envisioned is not entirely accurate.
  Good luck man!

Callan wrote:

Callan, is there any way for the players to figure out what the most likely resource is? I mean, if I'm in that forest and there's lots and lots of dead wood suitable for firewood lying all around me, do I get that information, or do I get "you're in a forest" and then I have to guess which one the GM thinks is most likely?

A GM in my game could think the firewood is in that same spot. But, as I imagine it, he'll think to himself "If I sit here silently, the damn players will just move onto resolution and probably roll/guess lucky and get it regardless of what I think. But if I engage in a little question and answer before we get to resolution, I'll be able to convey some of my thoughts on which resources would be here. And hey, while I'm about it it'll be interesting to see if they can figure it out with what I tell them!"

Hi Justin,

I appreciate you putting a positive spin on exploration of system. But if your using hunter resolutions to get to the list you want, how far do you imagine you'll get if you ignore the SIS and just explore system?

In terms of exploring setting, probably a game like this actually does more to explore setting than simulationist games. Because IMO, simulationists don't explore setting, as much as narrativists don't explore character. They both DEFINE it. Exploration is merely seeing what's there. Defining it is creating what's there. In my game, you don't do any defining of setting, you just explore along.

I think I may have to watch out for a RPG cultural issue which sees simulationism as passive "see what's there" play. And my lists make the player group passive in terms of defining the world. A touch ironic! :)

dindenver wrote: In other words, you can't make a game more gamist by removing some simulation aspects. You make it more gamist by creating a mechanic that rewards players in game terms rather than in story or setting terms.

Joshua wrote: Okay, so my question now is how is the player's decision of what resource to look for made a meaningful decision if the information he's given by the GM is supposed to telegraph what he thinks is there?  Doesn't this just make it GM mind-reading?  How does the player's initiative to search for X translate into an address of challenge?

Also, random and tangential point, instead of picking one resource that's the most likely, assigning it a 'good' chance and the rest an even 'poor' chance, what would you think of ranking those resources, so that of the five, the most likely has an 80% chance, the second most likely a 60% chance, the third most likely a 40% chance, and so on?  (Numbers obviously being rough and tweakable for the end design.)

Hi!
  Well, personally I prefer Rules-lite Simulation by-and-large. Doe it appeal to Gamist players? I don't think so, it doesn't seem to reward good game play. There's no way to max out a stat to increase that 15% to an acceptible level. Not all of the objects have the same value,  why would you search for water in a forest? It seems like the Gamist appeal is lacking because of these sorts of issues.
  Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to pick apart your idea. But answer your question. I think it gets back to that idea that every game mechanic has elements of all three agendas in it, it's just a matter or proportions.
  Also, I think you have misunderstood the definition of simulationism. The goal is not to provide a simulation of Real life or to create a realistic game mechanic (i.e., the intuitive definition of simulation), but to simulate the setting the game takes place in. Just because a game assigns a detailed list of percentages to resources does not make it simulation play. When the mechanics and the setting is indivisible and the point of play is to reproduce the setting envisioned, you have entered simulation turf. Your mechanics put the setting first. By turning a whole range of skills into a set piece for players to play with, you move away from Gamist play and into simulation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, lol

Callan wrote:
I think I may have to watch out for a RPG cultural issue which sees simulationism as passive "see what's there" play. And my lists make the player group passive in terms of defining the world. A touch ironic! :)

dindenver wrote:
Hi!
  Well, personally I prefer Rules-lite Simulation by-and-large. Doe it appeal to Gamist players? I don't think so, it doesn't seem to reward good game play. There's no way to max out a stat to increase that 15% to an acceptible level.

Not all of the objects have the same value, why would you search for water in a forest?

Also, I think you have misunderstood the definition of simulationism. The goal is not to provide a simulation of Real life or to create a realistic game mechanic (i.e., the intuitive definition of simulation), but to simulate the setting the game takes place in. Just because a game assigns a detailed list of percentages to resources does not make it simulation play. When the mechanics and the setting is indivisible and the point of play is to reproduce the setting envisioned, you have entered simulation turf. Your mechanics put the setting first. By turning a whole range of skills into a set piece for players to play with, you move away from Gamist play and into simulation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, lol

Justin wrote: Unless the tables spiral off each other - so if you're lucky you can get a magical item, for example, and that refers you to another table with potential magic item tables. Let's face it - treasure tables - are the meat and potatoes of much of D&D play. You are not on touchy ground there at all.

As a point of mild critique, I find the tables a little cumbersome, when you could go all-out player defined and play Donjon.

They add a LOT of search and handling time to play. How can you use these lists efficiently, because the more time you spend looking through lists and rolling probablity dice the more people are exploring the setting. This is not in itself a bad thing, and as you said, not neccessarily sim play - BUT, it does detract from the address of challenge in gamist play the longer you indulge in it. I suppose that is my mild disinclination to such list systems. But my opinion is pretty small - I could only suggest that you make list navigation/resolution as efficient and rapid as posssible.

And how many items are you intending to put on each list as well? Four or five? Ten or Twenty?

Actual Play of a gamist stripe... yeah, I have to think back for that one.  This wasn't an overtly gamist game, but the example will do:

I'm GMing a Riverworld campaign in which the player characters wake up naked on the banks of a giant river along with thousands and millions of other people.  A large part of the game is "nation-building" and the characters spend a large amount of time searching for and acquiring resources with which to build a nation to protect itself from the barbarians all around them.  This is a highly constrained setting, and the naked protagonists will need tools.  The "best" way to acquire these is to find the flint and chert deposits some ten miles away from the river bank and start tooling wood from the forests between the river and the stone deposits (this is the sequence of events presented in the novel that the sourcebook is based on, which is a profoundly simpleminded approach to adventure design, admittedly).  The problem arises, however, that the PCs have no good reason to go stomping off ten miles to get Resource One so they can make Resource Two so they can build Resource Three, etc.  (Being a good illusionist GM I put a waterfall over there to draw their attention.)

In this situation, there is only one address that is potentially successful (so sayeth the gamebook), but without some sort of context (there's workable stone over there) they are incapable of making that address.  The other time I GMed the same scenario I added an NPC metallurgist or something who was able to identify the far-off cliffs and suggest that there'd be stone there, which helped, but it was still breadcrumb illusionism.  Throughout the game, one of the players repeatedly added to his narration, "And under a rock I find a gun."  He did so jokingly, but it arose out of a very real problem where he knew what he wanted but he did not have the information and context with which to even begin forging a path to get there.

Now, to your game, if I'm a player going from point A to point B and have an opportunity in transit to search for something that might be useful, I cannot make a meaningful decision without context.  I can certainly tell you what it would be nice to have, but unless I know what might be available and how likely it is, I have no way to turn my desire into an address.  Usually such search-for-stuff procedures work with the player making a suggestion of what would be likely and the GM deciding if (a) it is likely, (b) the player has the ability to find it, and (c) the GM wants the player to have the resource.  This process is often iterative, with the player saying "I want to find a swamp with poisonous frogs," the GM saying "Okay, there's one to the west, but there's quicksand," the player responding, "I use my brachiating feat to swing from tree to tree instead," and so on.  The likelihood of a resource being available and its "harvestableness" are not pleas for simulationism, they are necessary bits of data that the player needs in order to make his address on how he will apply his character traits to the situation.

This is what I see missing from your design -- the player isn't making an address at all, they are trying to figure out what the GM thinks is the most likely resource, deciding if they want whatever they think that is, and deciding whether to go for the likely win or some unlikely other thing that they really want.  At no point do I see player resources (character stats, story tokens, whatever) being applied tactically or strategically.  A large amount of this resolution is punted up into the social level, preventing players from addressing the situation with their characters.

Thanks Joshua, an actual play account really helps the discussion.

I can certainly tell you what it would be nice to have, but unless I know what might be available and how likely it is, I have no way to turn my desire into an address. Usually such search-for-stuff procedures work with the player making a suggestion of what would be likely…

A large amount of this resolution is punted up into the social level, preventing players from addressing the situation with their characters.

To my eye, the interchange from Capes that you present is just as much a social-level matter, but there's a large difference between "I correctly figured out what you, as a player, care about" and "I correctly figured out what you, as a GM, think is the most likely thing that my character can find."  The Capes example is about people; the resource example is about a mental simulation of fictional circumstances.  Maybe guessing what the GM is thinking and correctly interpreting their telegraphing is enjoyable for you -- in which case, continue full steam ahead producing a system that supports and encourages that.  I just don't see the appeal, personally.