Rules Discussion

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Worth remembering that British Grimdark didn't just pop up out of nowhere; Britain of the late 70's / 80's was an angry and grim country, which came across in a lot of it's alternative media, even if the things those creators were trying to say have been forgotten now and too many people take them at face value (Especially 40k).

It's also the case that the subtler and more humourous elements were removed as time went on; Rick Priestly has talked about this in interviews.

 

[Luca]

My 2 cents: I agree with the call of not creating a "banned RPGs list".
First because, as it has been said, this just becomes an invitation to game the system and have malicious actors try and get "enemy" systems banned.
Second and most important: the moment you're forced to stop trusting the maturity of (most of) your posters and establish formal rules, you've lost anyway.

Politics, for the Pub, is just like porn: "I know it when I see it". No further definition is useful for our purposes.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Politics, for the Pub, is just like porn: "I know it when I see it". No further definition is useful for our purposes.

If I start a "sexy rpgs for sexy times" thread it's your fault.

 

[Ladybird]

If I start a "sexy rpgs for sexy times" thread it's your fault.

"I know you said the wandering monsters were Bears, but I still wasn't expecting this."

 

[Lundgren]

I'd say that the Traveller setting with discussion about current nations might cross the line.

The current trip to Mars thing is tough. If it’s literally now, then we’re likely to get into “is Trump or Biden less likely to frack Mars?”, which I can’t see as being very helpful.

Fast forward a bit, positing different world leaders and some renamed corporations and now you’re really no different than any Near Future Sci-Fi game. However, one of the thorniest topics with First Contact isn’t going to be how the governments handle it, but the religion.

While the game itself would be about 20 years after first contact, the whole idea is that it would be pretty much now the fleet shows up. So besides what would happen during the actual first contact, it is also what groups here on Earth would align themselves with certain interstellar groups. Some Earth countries might fracture over how to deal with it, others might set any current dividing issues to the side and it would be a unifying event. And yes, how different religion and religious factions would handle the situation.

As I see it, any discussion useful for me on that topic would most likely not only step over the line but be so far beyond it it will get lost and never find its way back again. I just have to find other ways to bounce around ideas and get input on that part of the setting than talking about it here on the forums.

After all, if I keep fiddling around with that setting, there are more things to talk about than how different politic and religious groups might handle extra-terrestrial diplomacy, and how they would react to each-others decisions.

On the other hand, the Weimar Republic setting sounds like it would make for a great thread here.

They I probably should write up a first post about it.

Have you picked up the Chaosium book on Weimar Berlin?

That Chaosium book was mention in a discussion on another forum about Babolyn Berlin, so I picked up the PDF. It was pretty much that one that got me looking into it as a Noir seiing. Unfortunately, it feels more like a teaser as the majority of the book is about how to put the mythos into Berlin. However, I ended up ordering on of the books mentioned in the list of references though.

I think it is best to not worry about the people trying to read political opinions into people's gaming habits. Like @The Butcher, I've played plenty of characters that are far from my own beliefs.

Oh, I'm not worried for my own sake. It isn't that long it hurts when I roll my eyes too hard

 

[CRKrueger]

You were the one that suggested you wouldn't see it as political...

I don’t, because it’s not. Unless Brendan comes in here and tells us why he wrote it, and his intention was political.

The reason Sigmata needed to be talked about is, unlike every other game you’re calling political, the author intended the RPG as political action, and playing the game is intended to be a political act reducing fascism and making the world a better place. That’s what puts it in the same category as RaHoWa and isn’t even remotely close to Terror Network or Eclipse Phase.

You want to call the author a narcissistic lunatic, you’re welcome to do so, but with the single rule of No Politics, then what is Politics has to be discussed.

The owners of the Pub have come to the decision that it doesn’t matter if the game itself is a political treatise and a call to political action. You can do whatever you want with it, so as long as we stick to the game, such games are good.

It’s done.

Pretending that those political treatise games though are similar to games that deal with politics like Cyberpunk, games with Virtue signal marketing like Zweihander and Lion and Dragon and games based on satire like Paranoia or Price of Freedom is a very specious argument. We’re back to looking at morning dew and Hurricane Andrew and categorising them together under ”Moisture”.

 

[Bunch]

I checked my alignment in the mirror. It says Miscreant.

 

[Nobby-W]

I checked my alignment in the mirror. It says Miscreant.

I rather liked Palladium's alignment system, although there's still no chaotic silly.

 

[The Butcher]

Worth remembering that British Grimdark didn't just pop up out of nowhere; Britain of the late 70's / 80's was an angry and grim country, which came across in a lot of it's alternative media, even if the things those creators were trying to say have been forgotten now and too many people take them at face value (Especially 40k).

Yes! Britain has quite the tradition of dystopian SF. In my tentative Mage: the Awakening game I even had an Annunaki (a sentient, invasive Abyssal reality) based on it.

 

[The Butcher]

I rather liked Palladium's alignment system, although there's still no chaotic silly.

That would definitely be Anarchist.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Marketing.

It's the obvious corrallary to the belief that fiction that isn't...nice...inadvertantly turns you into a not nice person.

"Buying this game proves youre a good person" is an atypical schilling technique among that group.

Especially when it's Pay What You Want.

This is why a little capitalism training is helpful.

/clown nose off

 

[Giganotosaurus]

I checked my alignment in the mirror. It says Miscreant.

I tried to do that but the mirror just broke.

 

[Dumarest]

I rather liked Palladium's alignment system, although there's still no chaotic silly.

There actually is, but it's Palladium* so it's not in the chapter where you'd logically expect to find it.

* Actually this applies to nearly every RPG out there.

 

[Bunch]

There actually is, but it's Palladium* so it's not in the chapter where you'd logically expect to find it.

* Actually this applies to nearly every RPG out there.

It's in the encumbrance section in one of the supplements on magic

 

[AsenRG]

Who’s Dumaret?

Dumarest 's evil twin. He acquired him in Flashing Blades chargen!

Sure. Why not? The barrier to entry is so incredibly low. As I've pointed out, you can even be an r p g dot net darling and put out an explicitly right-wing game.

But there's a difference between a game that is about...



...and a game that's about extreme right-wing politics...



You could probably make a solid argument that 3:16 features extreme-right-wing politics (It's literally a genocide simulator), and modern 40k pretty uncritically presents an extreme right-wing government as humanity's only hope - indeed, there are a few games where you explicitly play as it's secret police.

Meanwhile, SLA Industries covers the less extreme right-wing - hypercapitalism and a strict social order - and many post-apocalyptic games focus on keeping you and yours safe to the exclusion of others, in various ways. Games like Vampire can also easily shift when the PC's become strong enough to become the establishment, rather than rebelling against it.

Actually, based on your definition, the most right-wing game out there is D&D.

"Right-wing politics holds the view that certain social orders"
Everyone is part of a class.

"and hierarchies"
Levels.

"are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable"
Everyone has a class and level. The class doesn't change and everyone is struggling to go up in level.

"Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies"
Check. You gain levels by finding treasure!

 

[Faylar]

Before I left it for good, I left 2 facebook groups that got invaded by people spewing politics all over the place. It spread like a disease and invited more people to join with the same idea. Soon both sites became branches of TPB with many of the same actors there. Once that started, the people there to discuss actual worldbuilding and map making left in droves.
The problem is that they come in and split hairs... "Sorry if doing the right thing offends you" ..."So sorry that you think Orcs being racist is political..." All of that idiotic BS they defend as not politics because they are not talking government and political parties.

It was sad to watch and these two were just the latest 2 of about 6 that I had joined and had hopes for. It does not take long for politics to ruin forums.
To that end, we absolutely should not allow it to grow and stamp on people trying to wedge it in under different guises.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Brock Savage]

It's a lot like the problem with D&D's alignment system: 90% of the problem is that 90% of humanity is True Neutral but 90% of humanity thinks it's Lawful Good.

90% of humanity thinks they support liberté, egalité, and fraternité, but... there's always a "but" and everything after the "but" proves that everything before the "but" is a goddamned lie.

Dude I am so with you on this one. The majority of people fall apathetically into Neutral with leanings towards Law and Chaos. There aren't many people (comparatively speaking) who are capable of being consistently beastly or saintly.

 

[AsenRG]

Before I left it for good, I left 2 facebook groups that got invaded by people spewing politics all over the place. It spread like a disease and invited more people to join with the same idea. Soon both sites became branches of TPB with many of the same actors there. Once that started, the people there to discuss actual worldbuilding and map making left in droves.
The problem is that they come in and split hairs... "Sorry if doing the right thing offends you" ..."So sorry that you think Orcs being racist is political..." All of that idiotic BS they defend as not politics because they are not talking government and political parties.

It was sad to watch and these two were just the latest 2 of about 6 that I had joined and had hopes for. It does not take long for politics to ruin forums.
To that end, we absolutely should not allow it to grow and stamp on people trying to wedge it in under different guises.

Just my 2 cents.

And that is a great argument to ban Sigmata, Myfarog and Rahowa from ever being discussed. It always starts with "it's not politics", and turns to "everything is politics".

 

[Faylar]

And that is a great argument to ban Sigmata, Myfarog and Rahowa from ever being discussed. It always starts with "it's not politics", and turns to "everything is politics".

I have no idea what those are... lol. Probably for the reasons you stated. ;)

 

[AsenRG]

I have no idea what those are... lol. Probably for the reasons you stated. ;)

Let's just say that this thread began from me and CRKrueger thinking that Sigmata should be banned for being too politicised (though I don't recommend actually doing it, the author would probably see it as a badge of honour)....and nobody doubts that Myfarog and Rahowa are politicised.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

And that is a great argument to ban Sigmata, Myfarog and Rahowa from ever being discussed. It always starts with "it's not politics", and turns to "everything is politics".

And any games where the marketing is political. Sorry, you don't get to go "no that doesn't count".

 

[Bunch]

And any games where the marketing is political. Sorry, you don't get to go "no that doesn't count".

Nope not interested in going that far because someone is always going to say marketing action Z is for political reasons.

For me if I want to describe MYFARAG's chargen I feel I can do that here. If I want to discuss Stigmatas skill/combat resolution I feel like I can. If I want to extoll the moral virtues of playing or not playing those games I'm wandering into politics. If I'm pushing that a penny going to buy X Y or Z is abominable because it supports person X and therefore means I support everything they believe in that's not something I think flys here.

We just had a polite hopefully helpful and kind discussion about how to help an author improve a book about role-playing in the land of christians. Nobody devolved into whether they should or shouldn't write a game about it. Just how to help. That happened primarily because we all collectively chose to imbue the author with having the best intent even though I'm pretty sure some of the folks here would be cast on the wayward side of good according to some interpretations of christian beliefs. We can make similar choices with every poster. Assume the best. If you start thinking they are trolls. Don't feed them. Find another thread. If they invade every thread report it. A pattern will appear and probably most of us will not even shrug if they are gone.

 

[AsenRG]

I agree. I think Asen's post was the one that originally brought the politics of the game in and several other posters rose to it and started discussing that.

I actually think Kruger's suggestion to me that we took it to a rules thread was a sensible one and in the future I think all of us involved in this debate could do with trying to do that way earlier.

But Chuck made no political posts at all.

For the record, I'm also sorry!

I was kinda hoping that the OP would get it as "fair warning, might contain politics, especially given the way some political parties are currently trying to paint their opponents". We all know now that this is not exactly how it went, though...

I'll make sure to post such warnings straight in Rules Discussions next time!

And any games where the marketing is political. Sorry, you don't get to go "no that doesn't count".

...how am I supposed to know what they @#$%ing marketing is? Unless you mean the description on Drivethru, I don't read them.
The part about the author of Sigmata admitting his game is political? New to me. The part about "this game makes the world better"? Also new to me.
So how am I supposed to abide by such a rule?
I think you're (hopefully not deliberately) pushing it too far.

 

[Faylar]

Using politics to sell games is kind of a time honored tradition is it not?
Weren't there a few games from the 80s sold using the politics of the time... aka Pro USA/anti Nazi or Russia?

I think the problem we have entered into now is actually very similar to what it was back then too... we are a society of censorship. If we don't like something someone has to say, we not only try and censor their voice, but also try and vilify the person in order to discredit and effectively censor them some more.
Instead of censoring off of religious morality, as was done in the 80s... we now censor off of virtue morality. Its essentially the same crap being repeated over and over again. In 40 yeas, it will be something new.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

For the record, I'm also sorry!

I was kinda hoping that the OP would get it as "fair warning, might contain politics, especially given the way some political parties are currently trying to paint their opponents". We all know now that this is not exactly how it went, though...

I'll make sure to post such warnings straight in Rules Discussions next time!

No problem, I think the discussion has been useful.

...how am I supposed to know what they @#$%ing marketing is? Unless you mean the description on Drivethru, I don't read them.
The part about the author of Sigmata admitting his game is political? New to me. The part about "this game makes the world better"? Also new to me.
So how am I supposed to abide by such a rule?
I think you're (hopefully not deliberately) pushing it too far.

To be clear, I'm talking about the extreme cases.

But if Sigmata is too political I think any game where the creator has described it as "free of SJW bullshit" (Lion & Dragon) or said that anyone who is "anti SJW" shouldn't play their game (Zweihander) is quite clearly political. Not necessarily expecting you to know it (although the political views of those creators are hardly unknown) merely saying that if you want to take a hardline on political games we should take the creators at their word.

As I said, I'd rather we just discussed games as games like we did with the religious stuff. But if we're going to go down the "no political games" route I think we should do it properly. For these edge cases; I agree with Kruger that something like Paranoia doesn't qualify, although I think Eclipse Phase is borderline.

 

[AsenRG]

No problem, I think the discussion has been useful.

I'm still sorry! Those aren't the discussions I joined the Pub for.

To be clear, I'm talking about the extreme cases.

Yeah, I know. We just differ in some details of what is "extreme".

But if Sigmata is too political I think any game where the creator has described it as "free of SJW bullshit" (Lion & Dragon) or said that anyone who is "anti SJW" shouldn't play their game (Zweihander) is quite clearly political.

I can agree with those two, though I didn't know that part about Zweihander. I know the author's political leanings are left, I just never bothered to read...is that from his Twitter or something?

Not necessarily expecting you to know it (although the political views of those creators are hardly unknown) merely saying that if you want to take a hardline on political games we should take the creators at their word.

Those two I'd agree with (unlike the "anything published by PIG" suggestion, for the reason CRK outlined - though I'd make an exception for SJWs Must Die if there was such a publisher)...but I'd prefer an "author is dead" approach where we only judge the text in the game, and possibly the one you'd read right before getting the game (from Drivethru/Itch.io/Lulu). Because any other text is, as stated above, something I'm probably not interested in. And I've likely missed it.
And a rule where a lot of us could credibly claim innocence for breaking...ain't much of a rule at all.

This might still get Eclipse Phase on the list, though...

As I said, I'd rather we just discussed games as games like we did with the religious stuff. But if we're going to go down the "no political games" route I think we should do it properly. For these edge cases; I agree with Kruger that something like Paranoia doesn't qualify, although I think Eclipse Phase is borderline.

Eclipse Phase is far beyond the border, IME. Doesn't mean we didn't turn it on its head and play a game where all the anarchist habitats were bound to have...issues.

 

[AsenRG]

If I start a "sexy rpgs for sexy times" thread it's your fault.

You totally should!

 

[Baeraad]

I picked up a copy of Sigmata just because this discussion made me curious. Which means that if the author was trying to boost sales by being controversial, I just became Part Of The Problem. Feh.

It's... well, I think there is a good game in here somewhere? I mean, there is something very cool about superheroes fighting an oppressive Regime, but they only have superpowers when the Resistance as a whole is doing well. And while I haven't gotten to the nitty-gritty of it yet, there are hints that a large part of the game will be about trying to get a whole bunch of people to work together who all agree that the Regime needs to go, but have very different ideas on what should happen after that. That's a ton of meaty roleplaying material right there.

I do kind of feel like the game could stand to spend less time shaking me by the collar and yelling, "THE REGIME IS EVIL!!! GET IT?! GET IT?! DO YOU GET HOW EVIL THE REGIME IS?! BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU GET HOW EVIL THE REGIME IS!!!!" Look, I am entirely on board with the fact that the Regime sucks, okay? I am 100% in agreement that the jackbooted thugs who turn neighbour against neighbour, beat up anyone who so much as looks at them funny and drive undesirables first into ghettos and then into internment camps are what is technically known as the bad guys. In fact, I am pretty sure that very nearly everyone would be! Could you please stop getting spittle in my face so we can go about the business of throwing cars at them?

 

[Baulderstone]

I can agree with those two, though I didn't know that part about Zweihander. I know the author's political leanings are left, I just never bothered to read...is that from his Twitter or something?

Just a reminder to everyone that if want to go digging into a game designer's political opinions, this isn't the forum for it.

 

[Baeraad]

Having read a little further, the combat system is interesting. Everyone participating in a fight has an Exposure value that starts at 0, and at 10 Exposure they are out of the game. Each enemy still standing increases one PC's Exposure by a fixed amount per turn - there's no such thing as enemy attack rolls, they're just static obstacles for the PCs to overcome. There's only four moves: protect yourself (reduces your own Exposure), protect an ally (reduces the ally's Exposure), hit an enemy when he's not looking (increases an enemy's Exposure a little), and hit an enemy REALLY HARD when he IS looking (increases an enemy's Exposure a lot, but at the cost of increasing your own). You have a different stat for each one. Hmm. I'd have to actually try this out to see if it's the sort of simple that leads to elegant complexity in practice, or if it's the sort of simple that rewards doing the same thing over and over again, but it's an interesting idea.

You also have the option, at any time, of igniting the Signal. Precisely what happens then hasn't been explained yet, but I assume that things start going KABOOM.

Also, the GM narrates failures, while the players narrate successes, within the bounds of certain rules (no contradicting previously established facts, etc). Again, not sure how well this would work in practice, but I do kind of like it in principle. It'd make it harder to run a highly structured game with an existing world to explore, but easier to run a pick-up game that didn't require much preparation. And while I prefer the first kind, I have, in my old age, also started seeing the appeal of the second kind.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I picked up a copy of Sigmata just because this discussion made me curious. Which means that if the author was trying to boost sales by being controversial, I just became Part Of The Problem. Feh.

It's... well, I think there is a good game in here somewhere? I mean, there is something very cool about superheroes fighting an oppressive Regime, but they only have superpowers when the Resistance as a whole is doing well. And while I haven't gotten to the nitty-gritty of it yet, there are hints that a large part of the game will be about trying to get a whole bunch of people to work together who all agree that the Regime needs to go, but have very different ideas on what should happen after that. That's a ton of meaty roleplaying material right there.

I do kind of feel like the game could stand to spend less time shaking me by the collar and yelling, "THE REGIME IS EVIL!!! GET IT?! GET IT?! DO YOU GET HOW EVIL THE REGIME IS?! BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU GET HOW EVIL THE REGIME IS!!!!" Look, I am entirely on board with the fact that the Regime sucks, okay? I am 100% in agreement that the jackbooted thugs who turn neighbour against neighbour, beat up anyone who so much as looks at them funny and drive undesirables first into ghettos and then into internment camps are what is technically known as the bad guys. In fact, I am pretty sure that very nearly everyone would be! Could you please stop getting spittle in my face so we can go about the business of throwing cars at them?

That was part of mty issue with it. It's being pitched as a game of complex and morally grey unlikely alliances and then apparently I'm fighting the Coalition States from Rifts. Also found it massively overwitten and badly in need of an editor.

My main issue though is that I can't find anything in it that a Wild Talents setting wouldn't do better.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Actually, speaking of Palladium if anyone wants a game about fighting an oppressive regime play Nightbane instead. You get to be some weird bat thing with knives sticking out of you or something like that.

 

[Voros]

I guess most Americans missed the rather obvious anti-Thatcherism parody of The Enemy Within when they attack 'politics in games.' Thank god we didn't have any social media in the 80s or I'm sure you'd have some small circle of fanatics shrieking about it on Twitter then as well.

Selective outrage as usual.

I picked up a copy of Sigmata just because this discussion made me curious. Which means that if the author was trying to boost sales by being controversial, I just became Part Of The Problem. Feh.

I only checked it out because I really enjoyed the designer's earlier and far superior game Cryptomancer, the only game I've encountered that not only makes hacking work but central to the gameplay. It is also very well written and laid out. I still highly recommend it.

The premise of the new game didn't bother me anymore than the premise of The Price of Freedom bothered me, or the latest Wolfenstein and Watchmen for that matter which have very similar setting ideas. Ultimately I didn't find the mechanics or the superhero/sf setting to my tastes but to compare it to Myfarog (which I've read and is crap), Fatal or RaHowRa is horseshit.

 

[Bunch]

I guess most Americans missed the rather obvious anti-Thatcherism parody of The Enemy Within when they attack 'politics in games.' Thank god we didn't have any social media in the 80s or I'm sure you'd have some small circle of fanatics shrieking about it on Twitter then as well.

Selective outrage as usual.



I only checked it out because I really enjoyed the designer's earlier and far superior game Cryptomancer, the only game I've encountered that not only makes hacking work but central to the gameplay. It is also very well written and laid out. I still highly recommend it.

The premise of the new game didn't bother me anymore than the premise of The Price of Freedom bothered me, or the latest Wolfenstein and Watchmen for that matter which have very similar setting ideas. Ultimately I didn't find the mechanics or the superhero/sf setting to my tastes but to compare it to Myfarog (which I've read and is crap), Fatal or RaHowRa is horseshit.

I think I'm the main point of comparison and I have not read any of those. I'm using them more as stand ins for things on the potential left side, right side and just messed up side.

 

[Baulderstone]

I guess most Americans missed the rather obvious anti-Thatcherism parody of The Enemy Within when they attack 'politics in games.' Thank god we didn't have any social media in the 80s or I'm sure you'd have some small circle of fanatics shrieking about it on Twitter then as well.

Yes. Once we start banning discussion of games for political content, the whole house falls in.

Once word got out that we were keeping a list, it would also draw people here specifically to argue for the banning of games they thought represented the "other side". Exactly the kind of people that we aren't looking to encourage.

 

[Bunch]

I have a modest proposal. We ban all game discussion.

 

[Séadna]

I guess most Americans missed the rather obvious anti-Thatcherism parody of The Enemy Within when they attack 'politics in games.' Thank god we didn't have any social media in the 80s or I'm sure you'd have some small circle of fanatics shrieking about it on Twitter then as well.

Another example is Aquelarre which has politicised elements around it in Spain. As Baulderstone said it would never stop.

 

[Voros]

Recommended listening.

 

[Ladybird]

Having read a little further, the combat system is interesting. Everyone participating in a fight has an Exposure value that starts at 0, and at 10 Exposure they are out of the game. Each enemy still standing increases one PC's Exposure by a fixed amount per turn - there's no such thing as enemy attack rolls, they're just static obstacles for the PCs to overcome. There's only four moves: protect yourself (reduces your own Exposure), protect an ally (reduces the ally's Exposure), hit an enemy when he's not looking (increases an enemy's Exposure a little), and hit an enemy REALLY HARD when he IS looking (increases an enemy's Exposure a lot, but at the cost of increasing your own). You have a different stat for each one. Hmm. I'd have to actually try this out to see if it's the sort of simple that leads to elegant complexity in practice, or if it's the sort of simple that rewards doing the same thing over and over again, but it's an interesting idea.

Repeat the Signal is a huge update; it tweaks character generation (Replacing core processes with effectively a separate stat for each action type in each structured scene type) and adjusts the rules for structured scenes to give you more options (In particular, more ways of helping your buddies out), amongst other things. I wouldn't bother with it unless you're actually interested in running the game though, it's a bit expensive to buy out of idle curiosity. It also doesn't deal with the core issue, that some players might want something with much less structure to it, but the concept of radio-powered cyborg freedom fighters is easily imported into most generic supers-capable systems.

I have a modest proposal. We ban all game discussion.

Genius.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Repeat the Signal is a huge update; it tweaks character generation (Replacing core processes with effectively a separate stat for each action type in each structured scene type) and adjusts the rules for structured scenes to give you more options (In particular, more ways of helping your buddies out), amongst other things. I wouldn't bother with it unless you're actually interested in running the game though, it's a bit expensive to buy out of idle curiosity. It also doesn't deal with the core issue, that some players might want something with much less structure to it, but the concept of radio-powered cyborg freedom fighters is easily imported into most generic supers-capable systems.

That was another odd thing about it.

It was a narrative game, but without the rules lightness I've come to expect from that genre. I'm sure there's a market for "heavy crunch narrative" but I can't imagine it's large.