I mentioned TROS in an article I recently did (actually, part 1 of a 2 part article) for Swordse Edge magazine. You can see the article here:
http://www.swordsedge.net/Issue15/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee.html
I'd be interested to hear any reactions anyone has to it, and any comments on the issue in general.

JR

I found the artilce to be quite interesting. I eagerly await part 2.

I've always felt that most RPGs fail to capture the true essense of arms and armor. Even though I know scant little about historical accuracy common sense dictates that bludgeoning weapons would be better against flexible mail and piercing attacks would be effective against almost anything, and yet (at least in the current incarnation of DND) the varying types of damage affect armor very little. Along similar lines I would like to see the impact of such an article introduced to the DnD message boards.

Do you play Riddle of Steel regularly or do you just have a passing knowledge of it? If you do play regularly how do you feel that RoS represents the principles you lay down?

Drifter,

I didn't finish the article. I didn't find it captured my interest. When I read this:

Some fans of RPG’s consciously welcome this as a positive development. Frustration with the previous bungled attempts by designers to improve realism has fostered a general hostility toward historical grounding, and a deliberate intellectual defense of what has become the recognizable trend toward "anti-realism".

There always will be a fan base for professional wrestling, and there will always be gamers who prefer low-brow rule systems and reject concepts like “internal consistency” outright.

I find that people are incredibly sensitive about this issue, as if (fairly mild)criticism of a particular style of gaming was a condemnation of their entire existence. I can't help but notice it's quite reminiscent of the way people react to having their religion crtiticised.

My point however, wasn't so much to make a case for realism in role playing games or argue against unrealistic ones (I specifically pointed out that i had no problem with games which are intentionally unrealistic!) but rather to start discussion of and create a resource for the idea of making 'hard' rpg's more realisitc.

At any rate. JB wrote:

Drifter,

I didn't finish the article. I didn't find it captured my interest. When I read this:


Quote:
Some fans of RPG’s consciously welcome this as a positive development. Frustration with the previous bungled attempts by designers to improve realism has fostered a general hostility toward historical grounding, and a deliberate intellectual defense of what has become the recognizable trend toward "anti-realism".

My bias detectors began jangling. Then just a bit further down we have:

Quote:
There always will be a fan base for professional wrestling, and there will always be gamers who prefer low-brow rule systems and reject concepts like “internal consistency” outright.

I felt offended at this point, as I have a need for respect, and didn't feel
motivated to continue. I would have enjoyed the article more, which goes on to fairly characterize gamers who like game mechanics that closely simulate in-game-world events, if it hadn't started off on this tack of bemoaning the state of the industry as if there is some ideal game out there, with the others being pale imitations or failures.

There are many crappy game systems out there, and many that advertise themselves as "realistic" and either don't deliver on that promise or that seem to have a pretty weird or nonexistent idea of what "realistic" means. However, there are also a good number of games that operate on a whole different tack from the Riddle of Steel and succeed in satisfying what brings their players to the table. Look on the rest of the Forge for plentiful examples. You may not enjoy these kinds of games but I hope future articles will dwell on what satisfies and delights what you want in gaming, without dumping on what other people enjoy.

Dude - its not for everybody not only becuase they are to wuss to make the slog, butbthey don;t necessarily WANT to make the slog. I think the problemn with the article people are identifying is that it presupposes a One True Way, and that of course gets up peoples noses. It's perfectly legitmiate to say that the present state of the iundustry does not suit YOUR preference, but frankly, why should I care?

I thought the point of the acrticle was about consistency. If it an RPG is going to claim realism, but then fails to reinforce those claims then thats inconsistent. To me unless a game explicitly says that it does not concern itself with realism then I assume that they are trying to do things realistically. If said game then fails to provide realism this puts a bug up my ass. I never really got the impression that the article supported one way of playing.

I enjoyed part one and look forward to part two. I especially agree about the lack of differentiation of weapons. Why, in AD&D for instance, would anyone who can use a longsword use any other one-handed weapon (unless the 'to hit vs. armor' adjustments are used)?

I think that eventually, FRPGs might have a renaissance of accuracy (or at least I can hope).

Be sure to let us know when part 2 is out...

tauman

Hi Bob,

Just to help you (perhaps) understand why people are bent out of shape by parts of the article:

Drifter Bob wrote: I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly.

tauman wrote: I enjoyed part one and look forward to part two. I especially agree about the lack of differentiation of weapons. Why, in AD&D for instance, would anyone who can use a longsword use any other one-handed weapon (unless the 'to hit vs. armor' adjustments are used)?

I think that eventually, FRPGs might have a renaissance of accuracy (or at least I can hope).

Be sure to let us know when part 2 is out...

tauman

Salamander wrote: The majority of players out there want to go out kick some hiney and get the girl.

Drifter Bob wrote:
I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly.

You point to this as an example of why people shouldn't be upset with the article? Can you not see how incredibly condescending that sentence is? "Well, if you WANT a silly game, that's OK - nothing wrong with that."

I think this guy Kris Havlak, who wrote a similar article to mine, said it pretty well in his article at:

http://www.gggames.net/medievalcombat.shtml

For those loathe to click the link, here are the first three paragraphs, which are very relevent as to the argument about the value or necessity of realism.

Realism is a word that causes many role-players to writhe in disgust, horrified at the implications when a player character can be killed in a single blow. It is a term often filed away in the musty recesses of gamer’s exile, being sacrificed for widely accepted concepts such as play-balance and speed-of-play.

However, nearly all systems cling to one or another fragment of realism, for the fantasy created by alternate worlds is heightened when some aspect of real life is mimicked. Realism allows our personal experiences to be reflected in the imaginary worlds we create. Without it, players in an imaginary setting have no way of determining actions for their characters, and the world will be incongruous as perceptions will vary. Perhaps this is why games where players take the parts of health-ray wielding amoebas trying to escape from a world where water is solid and gravity is negative are uncommon. Realism doesn’t have to be synonymous with lethal, although it has become that way. Realism in gaming encompasses systems that draw their mechanics from principles of real life.

In any case, the aspect of gaming where realism levels vary the most significantly is that of combat. Obviously, there are games tailored to all tastes-- Dungeons and Dragons® bases combat on powerful heroes, Feng Shui® on cinematics, and a number of more lethal systems such as CORPS® on realistic mechanics. However, even in lethal games where realism is generally obtained, systems of melee combat fail miserably. In some cases, melee combat is dominated by firearms combat and becomes a second priority for game writers. In others, assumptions are made that don’t adhere to the way melee combat actually works. Finally, a number of systems just don’t bother to tweak little details that create the illusion of reality, making it extremely difficult for players to suspend the disbelief of gaming. In many cases this is acceptable, as rules for melee combat can be simple when a game is dominated by guns. However, in worlds without guns, primarily those set in the middle ages, a good set of melee combat rules is essential. A handful of common fallacies with medieval combat systems are easy to point out, and with them a number of ways to make even cinematic games more detailed and believable.

None of these changes will make combat more or less lethal, alter the basic gaming system substantially, or detract from the style of play. They will increase realism, however, making the following changes for the better:

•Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

Finally, these changes will secure proper knowledge of medieval combat into the minds of role-players, building upon personalities in ways that extend beyond the gaming industry into proper physics, principles, history, and general knowledge, thus creating better-rounded gamers. Cinematic combat can remain cinematic, fantasy can remain fantasy, and ultra-realistic systems can claim realism as well as lethality. Without making a system so lethal that players lose their characters the moment they enter combat, realism can be integrated into medieval warfare in such a way as to benefit all aspects of role-playing.

Drifter Bob wrote: Finally, to the guy from San Jose, I couldn't suss out from your post if you play unrealistic or realistic?

Brian Leybourne wrote: It's certainly preferable to kicking the girl and getting some hiney :-)

contracycle wrote:

Brian Leybourne wrote: It's certainly preferable to kicking the girl and getting some hiney :-)

Depends who you talk to.

I am continually amazed at the number of people (around the Forge, even) who seem to never have heard of GURPS. GURPS differentiates between cutting, impaling, and crushing damage. It differentiates between armor's ability to absorb and deflect blows. This is important because it makes sure that while the guy in the plate feels sufficiently strong blows, it also makes sure that you can't just sit there an punch your way through a brick wall via bloody-minded persistance. Unless you're Superman. It offers dodging, blocking, and parrying as separate defensive acts. And damage is damaging. If two relatively healthy people start swinging big pieces of steel around at each other, either or both of them are going to be very unhealthy in short order.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate your article. Also, I'm a big TRoS fan, and so are my players. But GURPS has been around since the late 80s. If you never saw it or dismissed it because it could handle a lot of genres, take another look now.

I see so many things that are different from D&D hailed as "new and revolutionary!" just because they aren't D&D like. Lemme tell you...there are lots of games out there with good combat, lots with classless characters, lots with other features you might consider remedies for bad pieces of D&D.

Jason Kottler wrote: I am continually amazed at the number of people (around the Forge, even) who seem to never have heard of GURPS. GURPS differentiates between cutting, impaling, and crushing damage. It differentiates between armor's ability to absorb and deflect blows.

I see so many things that are different from D&D hailed as "new and revolutionary!" just because they aren't D&D like. Lemme tell you...there are lots of games out there with good combat, lots with classless characters, lots with other features you might consider remedies for bad pieces of D&D.

Drifter Bob wrote: I know there are a lot of great games out there. I havent' seen many with very good combat systems. Could you mention a few other than GURPS and TROS?

Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems, if not necessarily realistic. But I have to be honest, I don't know the current generation of rpgs that well, having quit for a long time in the early 90's. I can tell, whether they agree with me or like my article or not, there are some smart people here. Lets hear some people sound off, what are your favorite top 6 rpg games, for whatever reason?

I'll list my top 6 (you can see how dated I am)

Original D&D
Call of Cthulhu
GURPS
Paranoia
Dying Earth RPG
TROS (even though I've never actually played it with another person!)

Drifter Bob wrote: Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems, if not necessarily realistic.

Hi Bob,

My top pick for a combat system which does its job best is Swashbuckler (Jolly Roger Games). It is aimed more at classic movie sword-athletics, but the logic and flow of play are impeccable. Its flaw is that the game text can be extremely misleading; I had to have a conversation with the author in order to grasp how to use the system.

Best,
Ron

Drifter Bob wrote: Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems

Drifter Bob wrote: I'll list my top 6 (you can see how dated I am)

Original D&D
Call of Cthulhu
GURPS
Paranoia
Dying Earth RPG
TROS (even though I've never actually played it with another person!)

Bob,

I think it might help to read my standard rant on combat systems. Hopefully it might give you some perspective on some of the ideas some of us have around here. Part of our communication problem is that I don't think you understand the theoretical angle from which we approach game design.

Have you seen the game InSpectres by Jared Sorensen? In that game, there are Stress Rolls that cause players to lose points from their stats that are caused by anything from too many phone calls to being in buildings when they explode. But they can't die. Players who've played this have found it to be highly realistic (not to mention pertinent to their everyday lives). Does that seem odd?

I'm tempted to ask you to read my #1 Rant, but I'm afraid that you might be offended. We seem to have gotten off to a fairly rocky start here.

But, it should suffice to say that there are an amazing number of games out there with what many would consider very realistic, very good combat systems. Despite very different designs.

Mike

Hey.

If you like Harn, you might like RuneQuest as well. They are basically the same system. RQ is a little less detailed. I often think of Middle Earth Role Playing being a bit like TROS because you have to make some decisions concerning how much offense vs. defense.

I'm fond of:

TROS
HARN
RuneQuest
Dying Earth
Pendragon
Talislanta

TROS is the only one that is much more than a statistical outcome system, however. Most other games of which I am aware just resolve to hit probabilities...

NT

Brian Leybourne wrote:

Drifter Bob wrote: Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems

Hmm, different strokes for different folks I guess. I have gotten to the point (ironically, since I write for TROS) where I am turned off by many RPG's because of their heavy focus on a combat system. That's a holdover from the really really old days when RPG's were an extension (or, better to say a descendant) of wargames. I don't really see why there needs to be a more detailed system for combat than anything else in the system.

Having said that, TROS is an exception. Because the combat is so realistic, it works really well and is not only a lot of fun but also perfectly OK to be more defined than the rest of the system. When I do want a good gritty game, there's none better (and I'm not just saying that because the boss will probably read this *grin*).

Interestingly, even though you define a good game as one with a realistic/interesting combat system, at least two of your top 6 games de-emphasise combat.

I think your projection of the link between realism and complexity onto us is not accurate. I don't think anyone has ever responded to any of your posts with an objection based around complexity. I would suggest you stop trying to invent reasons for our disagreement, and rather tackle the disagreement (if any) directly.

Now, on to systems. My prize for combat realism goes to Milleniums End and related systems. Hit location is detemrined by placing a "bullet fall" deviation diagram over a target diagram (humans in various poses, dogs, what have you) and dicing to determine where the bullet actually goes. Penetration of flesh, and whether bones are broken or organs penetrated, are determined on a large grid of injury-by-location effects with multiple lines to handle things like blood loss and permanent wounds.

It is marvellously detailed and well reserched, as far as ballistic injuries go. A cut down version of this targetting system was used for the Babylon 5 RPG, and recieved mixed reviews. I find the ME system admirable, but too inelegant to be my preference at the table.

By contrast, I suggest that HW/HQ can be an extraordinarily realistic system IF the participants know this stuff themselves. Because the fluidity and elegance of the resolution mechanism allow this detail to be incorporated as part of the negotiation between GM and player. There is absolutely no reason why you could not give a description like "your blow does not penetrate his mail but does crack his fourth rib". Most systems would need unbearable complexity to produce so fine a result; the price HW/HQ pays is that this is unlikely to be applied consistently and universally, even by the same GM.

I don't believe the problem involves a necessary objection to complexity. But, it has to be said, there are so many variables in injury and combat that a system aimed at being encyclopaedic inevitably becomes complex, especally considering the limited information processing bandwidth at the table.

Gareth nails it. It's not complexity, but detail that we're talking about. Detail creates focus. If you have a list of weapons, that tells the player that it's something that he ought to consider. Does the list have damage ratings? Then that's something he should consider. Weights? Costs? Also, it has nothing to do with the amount of detail, just the nature of it. Does the equipment list have Earth specific armors listed with an explanation of just how realistic they are? Then that informs the player that the game is about that sort of realism. Even if it's not intended.

These things all are part of the creation of focus of a game.

So, does D&D intend to be focused on combat? That's the crucial question. And the answer is, in early editions, it wasn't sure what it was focused on. As a new medium, Gygax and gang were just adding things as they went as seemed to make sense at the time. Not without thought, but certainly without the perspective of several decades of play to see what the result is.

Which is to say that D&D is conflicted in many ways. It says that it's about creating a story about the characters, but then the rules mostly center around how to kill things and what neat stuff they have to take.

Now, decades later, looking back on what they had wrought, they hand over the system to a designer on the cutting edge. He takes a look at it, and decides that, if he's going to be limited to all the "unrealisitic" requirements of D&D so that the game remains D&D, that he's going to have to rediscover it's focus. Looking at what they had, he sees that its certainly about combat, but it's also just as certainly not about realistic combat. Or, rather, given all the more realistic games created in the decades in between, it's certainly not realistic now.

So what does he do? He decideds to pick up on the fantastic elements, and emphasize them. 3rd Edition is an attempt to make a game that's not at all realisitc per se, but a reflection of itself in earlier incarnations. That is, play of D&D created an entire genre of it's own, and the current edition plays to that very unrealistic, but apparently very fun to mess with, genre.

It would do itself a disservice to it's own goals by trying to be more realistic on principle. This would require injecting detail that would distract from fun, effective play of that particular system. That would detract from what is, now, a well defined vision of play.


Know what? I don't like D&D. I don't like that particular vision. Given a choice between two games, one with a more "realistic" model, and one more like D&D, I'll go with the other model. I'm a huge fan of TROS for this reason.

But I don't believe that my predilictions are held by most others, nor that they should be. This is my personal preference, and I'll support others with other visions.

Now, as I've said, yes, if the goal is actually realism for a game, and it's realism like you define it, and they don't achieve that because of lack of research, that's a real problem, yes. No doubt. And I do think that happens. But only occasionally. I think that games with the same agenda that you want to see are rare, and that there are plenty that want to be realistic that do a fair job.

Could these few be improved by some of your suggestions? Maybe. But a particular game's vision is so specific to that game, that unless we're dealing with a specific game, I'd be loathe to suggest specific alterations.

But give me a specific game, and I'm all over it. TROS for example. It can be argued, in fact, that realism isn't one of TROS's primary focuses. But let's assume that it is for purposes here; I work under that assumtion most of the time. Reading this forum alone, you can see the work that I have done or supported that speaks to increasing the realism of a game that you claim is already amongst the most realistic. See the posts on Toughness, and the "Naked Dwarf" syndrome, for example.

You see, nobody here is against realism in any way. We're only for identifying first what realism means for the game in question and nailing it down for that particular vision. So, before you go talking about straw dogs, make sure you're not building any yourself.

The only place that we disagree, IMO, is in the number of games that have the problem that you claim, and that I see the fixes for a game as being specific to that game (I don't think there are any blanket measures that help many games, not even research).

BTW, we talk subjects like this to death here all the time. Here's a link to one that I remember participating in: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5402

Mike

toli wrote: Hey.



I'm fond of:

TROS
HARN
RuneQuest
Dying Earth
Pendragon
Talislanta

NT

I was actually one of the original playtesters for Dying Earth (still have the original word docs of the book on my HDD) but had to bow out due to time pressures and so didn't get my name in the book, damnit :-)

Brian.

Small hobby, isn't it?

Anyhow, I think that you'll find that there are a lot of avid Laws fans around here. Hero Quest is currently my favorite game.

Mike

Top 6 games:
RuneQuest (though my campaign world is cooler than Glorantha)
TROS
Shadowrun
Vampire (or Hunter, for that matter-alot of White Wolf games could easily adopt the TROS combat system)
Warhammer (More for the campaign world than anything else)
Lord of the Rings (the classic never dies)

I haven't tried Harn or Pendragon, but I've heard good things about them. DnD was my first, because of other friends when we were kids, but I've evolved now.
Games should not be silly in the childish sense, but that should be laughable and fun. It's just a game, right? I guess people play what suits them, realistic or no. I like gritty realism, and roleplaying rather than rollplaying, but the top priority for a game is fun-ness; being interesting and realistic is merely nice. Really, being realistic depends mostly on the GM. I've known a TROS seneschal who actually did a lighthearted, almost-silly campaign. (Heaven Forbid!!)

Do any of you know where one could get Pendragon these days? I had a look at it once, but that was... back in the other millenium. *g*

Richard,

It's still being produced and there are a lot of splatbooks. Ask your FLGS, they could get it in for you.

Brian.

Mike Holmes wrote: Gareth nails it. It's not complexity, but detail that we're talking about. Detail creates focus.

So, does D&D intend to be focused on combat? That's the crucial question. And the answer is, in early editions, it wasn't sure what it was focused on. As a new medium, Gygax and gang were just adding things as they went as seemed to make sense at the time. Not without thought, but certainly without the perspective of several decades of play to see what the result is.

Which is to say that D&D is conflicted in many ways. It says that it's about creating a story about the characters, but then the rules mostly center around how to kill things and what neat stuff they have to take.

Now, decades later, looking back on what they had wrought, they hand over the system to a designer on the cutting edge. He takes a look at it, and decides that, if he's going to be limited to all the "unrealisitic" requirements of D&D so that the game remains D&D, that he's going to have to rediscover it's focus. Looking at what they had, he sees that its certainly about combat, but it's also just as certainly not about realistic combat. Or, rather, given all the more realistic games created in the decades in between, it's certainly not realistic now.

So what does he do? He decideds to pick up on the fantastic elements, and emphasize them. 3rd Edition is an attempt to make a game that's not at all realisitc per se, but a reflection of itself in earlier incarnations. That is, play of D&D created an entire genre of it's own, and the current edition plays to that very unrealistic, but apparently very fun to mess with, genre.

It would do itself a disservice to it's own goals by trying to be more realistic on principle. This would require injecting detail that would distract from fun, effective play of that particular system. That would detract from what is, now, a well defined vision of play.

I think that games with the same agenda that you want to see are rare, and that there are plenty that want to be realistic that do a fair job.

Could these few be improved by some of your suggestions? Maybe. But a particular game's vision is so specific to that game, that unless we're dealing with a specific game, I'd be loathe to suggest specific alterations.

You see, nobody here is against realism in any way. We're only for identifying first what realism means for the game in question and nailing it down for that particular vision.

(I don't think there are any blanket measures that help many games, not even research).

Drifter Bob wrote: Yeah mike, but y'all were still missing my point. I'm not advocating complexity or detail. The precise level of either is up to the game desginer.

I see the same problem, and my solution is to go back to the drawing board, do some more original research instead of being so derivative of the 'homework' which was done in the 70's and before that.

I imagined some wannabe Ninja geek trying to actually use that incredibly dangerous thing in front of a mirror somewhere, and winced. It spooked me. Thats when I wrote my article.

There is a Stanislaw Lem story which jokes about this, about the danger of ever increasing oceans of mediocre and meaningless information, but to me it's serious, I feel sick about the amount of meaningless information floating around in my head, and the heads of everyone in the world.

I understand now how many of y'all are moving in the direction of ditching realism altogether, as you understand it, to regain control over the overall structure of a game. I applaad that clear approach to game design, within it's own context, but I think there is a pardigm shift here, we really both agree and disagree. Ultimately what I'm really talking about is that we should have a high standard for internal logic, ...

To use a new term I learned here, there is a little "SIM" in even some of the most abstracted games. To whatever extent it is there is, I say do it right.

My 'suggestions ' are meant to be an attempt to improve the basic body of technical knowlege that many games can and do draw from, to replace the old baggage with some new research. They are not intended as specific improvements for specific games.

Mike Holmes wrote: As I posted, it's not about how many weapons on the list, it's about what you list about each weapon. Not how many things you list, but the nature of the things you list.

Drifter Bob wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: As I posted, it's not about how many weapons on the list, it's about what you list about each weapon. Not how many things you list, but the nature of the things you list.

I still think you are not getting it. I'll paraphrase from part two of my essay, which is now out in a pre-release on the Forge in the RPG theory forum http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8556

Basically, better realism as I see it, dosn't mean you have 200 weapons instead of 20, or that you have 20 factors to describe each weapon you do have instead of 5. You can have 200 weapons with 20 factors or 5 weapons with two factors each, that is up to the game designer. My point is that you should make whatever data you are using be real data and not something you are pulling out of your ass. Unless, that is, there is some compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons.

Bob, you're belaboring a point that's been established for a while. You and I completely agree above. The only thing that we might disagree on is how often there is a "compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons." I think that this is more frequent than you do is all.

In any case it's an aesthetic decision. So as long as you and I agree that's true, and that the designer should make it a considered decision, I'm not seeing what else there is to debate about.

So ultimately, it's not about "my type of realism". The two documents I wrote were an effort, however flawwed, to provide a resource for RPG designers and players to improve the realism that they do use in their games, whether they are doing a detailed combat heavy game or an abstract game with an entirely different focus.

And that's laudible, as I've said. I don't take umbrage with the idea that research like this can help a game. My only objection is with the idea that all games would benefit from this particular sort of information (as opposed to other sorts of information). But we seem to agree on that now, so...

Finally, I would like to add, combat is a place to start with because combat rules have been most tinkered with and developed, but rather than retreating from tryin to do combat well, I think examinations of many other aspects of life should be done which could enhance the playing experinece. I don't think they rule each other out, to the contrary.

Nobody said anything to the contrary. All we do here is try to find better ways to implement systems, for whatever their goals are. So, again, we completely agree that one should try to do a better job.

I think it's interesting that you'd feel that you have to make this point in the TROS forum. In fact, I think that this has gotten way past TROS, and that we ought to think about either getting back on topic, or moving the discussion.

Mike

Bob, you're belaboring a point that's been established for a while. You and I completely agree above. The only thing that we might disagree on is how often there is a "compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons." I think that this is more frequent than you do is all.

Drifter Bob wrote: I'm sorry, I just wanted to clear the air for the second chapter of my article, and frankly, to lure you into reading it, since I'd had the link up for two days and nobody had evidently read it, I was beginning to panic ;)