The Threefold Components: towards a Total TRPG Corpus

Breaking the Threefold Components and recombining them for a Total TRPG Corpus

Theoreticians among us developed the Threefold Model (and its offshoots), which proposed that every RPG is composed of, or leans toward, one of three “corners”:

• • 1) Drama/Storytelling/Narrative: an RPG session as a novel-like or film-like experience

  • 2) The Game Itself: for example, the elegance/balance/coherence of the rules; what it takes to “win” the game (as seen more obviously in boardgames and CCGs); and metagaming as part of the experience.

  • 3) Simulation: modeling a virtual world (whether it be a “real world” genre or fictional setting)

This was followed by years of flamewars based on whether one of the three is “better” than the other.

My post is not about that. Rather, I am voicing a completely different “threefold” aspect of RPGs. Namely, I propose that every RPG product is made of three things:

• • 1) A game system. Whether it be a generic, multi-genre system such as GURPS or Savage Worlds, or a one-product, custom system used in an Indie RPG.

  • 2) A setting. Whether it be a worldbook, a genre (a genre is just a bundle of “setting tropes” without a named world), or an adventure. "Setting" encompasses what is usually referred to in the legalistic sense as an “intellectual property" (IP) or “product identity.”

  • 3) An aesthetic. Both visually and textually/editoriallly/stylistically. Includes the trade dress, graphic design, illustrations, font, and logo; but also the style of writing, to the extent that's a distinct feature of the product line.

Which may not be earth-shattering news. But sometimes it’s good to state the obvious.

Here’s why it matters: if there really were such a thing as an “RPG scientist,” who really wanted to experience and understand what makes RPGs tick, there could hardly be any better exercise than to methodically go through every TRPG ever made, and strip it into its three components: system, setting, and aesthetic...and then recombine them in every possible combination. Doing so would reveal both the core essence and the nuanced details of all three components.

Since RPGs are not strictly physical things (unlike a billiard ball or water molecule), breaking an RPG into its three components would require not only a scientific mind in the narrow sense of the word, but also artistry, imagination, and even *empathy.* Empathy is needed because such a “artistic scientist” would need to practice putting themselves in the shoes of the original designers of each RPG product, so that the designer's way of thinking can be further elaborated; while at the same time, the scientist’s own biases and personal preferences are as transparent and unobtrusive as feasible.

Such a project and path are conceivable.

Since OD&D came out in 1974, there have only been so many TRPGs made. Maybe thousands. But still, only so many. Which means...

...there have only been so many TRPG rules systems published.

...there have only been so many TRPG worldbooks, genre books, and adventures published.

...and there have been only so many TRPG “trade dresses.” Namely, each RPG product line usually has a unified aesthetic.

For our purposes, the first two components (system and setting) are of primary concern. Since professional-quality visual art can be expensive and time-consuming to procure, the visual component could be set aside.

If there were enough “RPG scientists” among us, whose skill and artistic empathy had been honed by practicing this method, and if we had “all the time in the world,” and if we had a public or private platform wherein our scientific findings could be shared with each other (without receiving Cease and Desist Orders from IP lawyers)...then we could take every RPG system ever published, and use it to render every world and adventure ever published.

The goal of our RPG “science project” would be to produce an artistic-scientific product for each of these system-setting combinations, which as closely mimics the original, professional design parameters as humanly feasible. For this project, WE WOULD NOT SEEK TO IMPROVE THE ORIGINAL SYSTEMS...we would include all the quirks. For example, our OD&D project would keep THAC0; the AD&D1e project would keep time “segments”; and the AD&D2e project would keep its demented wrestling rules. Warts and all.

Here’s what I mean. Imagine taking OD&D, as it exists. By thoroughly studying the OD&D game and the historical circumstances surrounding it (e.g. Gygax’s comments on how he designed the game, etc.), we work ourselves as best as possible into Gygax’s way of thinking. And then, we ask the question: if destiny had somehow “impelled” TSR and WotC to stick with the OD&D system all the way to the present day, and to use it to render all the subsequent D&D worlds using only the OD&D system as written...with the strict caveat that each product must be 100% compatible system-wise with OD&D...what would be the result?

What would an OD&D Dragonlance, OD&D Forgotten Realms, and OD&D Eberron look like? What would all the 5E adventures look like if they had to use only OD&D rules?

Furthermore, what would every other TRPG setting and adventure look like in OD&D rules? Not only the close-to-D&D settings, such as Golarion and other d20 OGL fantasy settings such as Freeport...but also all other genres...sci-fi...modern...supers...everything: Star Wars...DC Universe...Middle-earth...Official Traveller Universe...World of Darkness...Call of Cthulhu...the Sixth World of Shadowrun...Pokemon Jr....Numenera...The Burning Wheel...World of Synnibarr...Dogs in the Vineyard...everything. It’s all OD&D. In this scientific exercise, it’s as if OD&D is the only RPG that was ever made.

Think about how many IPs have been rendered using the Monopoly rules or other Boardgame systems, or using Collectible Card Game systems (which are an even more "abstract", "meta-gamist" lense than OD&D). If those systems can be used to model fictive worlds, then it is likewise possible to conceive what an OD&D "gamist" rendering of any IP would look like.

I guarantee that the process of meshing all settings with OD&D would be revealing...not only about the systemic subtleties and potentialities within the OD&D system...but also about what is essential to each fictional setting. By the end, the scientist, or team of scientists, would be pretty insightful in these regards.

The RPG scientists would need to develop an overall, consistent policy in regard to how much a system can be modified with bolt-on rules and subsystems to represent other genres (e.g. new classes, new PC races, new magic systems, superhero power systems)...and still be considered to be 100% mechanically compatible. Basically, there would be bolt-on subsystems for each genre or world, coupled with guidelines for how to run cross-world adventures, with the "home genre" taking precedence. (Consider the Star Trek/X-Men cross-over comic...its "home setting" is the Star Trek Universe, and so a TRPG version of this story would keep the scifi subsystems even though a few superhero PCs or NPCs visited.) No matter what genre subsystems were in play, it would still need to be possible for a character from any other genre to cross over and be played on the same game table, using the same rules system.

After we had mastered OD&D, we would go on to the next RPG. Say, Tunnels & Trolls. It wouldn’t have to be done in strict chronological order, but the aim would be to cover every RPG system ever made.

Granted, it would take years and years. It would require almost religious devotion...a cadre of TRPG monks, mystics, and wayfarers. Given the legal landscape, our scientific-artistic research would need to either be presented in a way that didn’t threaten the IP holders, or would need to be shared only privately.

But either way, we would become TRPG masters.

We would have a Total RPG Corpus composed of all TRPG worlds ever published, available in every TRPG system ever published. An Omni-statted TRPG Omniverse.

For a glimpse of the magnitude of the TRPG Omniverse, see my (complete?) list of all the IPs from other media which have ever been rendered in a TRPG format.

https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/ttrpgsettings

There’s 180+. Did I miss any?

Now imagine taking every single rules system which is represented in that list, and making a full conversion of all 180-some settings into each of those rules-sets. Of course there are somewhat fewer systems than settings, since some systems (such as GURPS) have been used to depict several licensed IPs.

The same would be done for the hundreds or thousands of other TRPG settings and systems.

An adventure worthy of the TRPG way of life.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472305-Breaking-the-Threefold-Components-and-recombining-them-for-a-Total-TRPG-Corpus#ixzz3r0aFgmwp

***

Originally Posted by Umbran

But, it seems like it is - you have broken down these three things that you feel is important - "I feel these are the important aspects," is not an empirical basis.

"Empirical" means "related to experience or experiments." I admit I haven't conducted experiments as to whether my proposition that a TRPG *product* (as a single book or product line) consists of three components: 1) rules system, 2) setting, and 3) aesthetic (visual presentation). Yet isn't that a self-evident experience? Aren't I stating the obvious?

I suppose someone could wrangle and argue that RPG products consist of length, height, width, weight, colors, paper, glue, molecules, and atoms...but that is not a meaningful breakdown.

I am using the word "scientific" in the wider sense of being "systematic", "thorough", and "finely tuned". Not in the most narrow sense of "peer-reviewed publications in an academic journal, using double-blind controls." Some of the scientific examples you gave aren't "scientific" in that sense either.

I have doubts that it is a particularly important aspect of the whole, though, given how many would prefer to not refer to the books in the course of play. The visual aesthetic is not very relevant when the book is closed.

The aesthetic may not be particularly important for the in-game play experience. Yet the aesthetic is very relevant to the actual RPG book/product...the "thing." The Aesthetic/Trade Dress is a salient component of that.

The primary purpose of this "experience/experiment/project" isn't about analyzing the soul (the likes and dislikes) of gamers. It's not about a customer survey or customer profiling. It's about methodically perceiving and mastering, in a methodical way, whatever is essential to each TRPG system and setting. A byproduct of that is a Total TRPG Corpus series of texts.

Then why did you say, "if there really were such a thing as an “RPG scientist,” who really wanted to experience and understand what makes RPGs tick, there could hardly be any better exercise..."?

Okay, I overstated that. You're right. It sounded like I was discounting all other scientific approaches to RPGs (ENWorld's studies, WotC's marketing study, the various academic papers which have been written about RPGs). It would be better to say:

"If there really were a cadre of persons who desired to have a thorough experience of how all TRPG settings would be rendered via all TRPG systems, then isn't it self-evident that the ultimate picture would be to methodically go through every TRPG ever made, and strip out the aesthetic component...and then recombine all of the systems and settings in every possible combination?"

Your feedback helped affirm that recombining the Aesthetic components of different settings is not a primary purpose of this proposed experience. (It wouldn't be so interesting to put Star Wars trade dress on the D&D Players Handbook, for example.)

And, again, I submit that if one wants to understand what makes RPGs tick, taking apart games without reference to the players is not going to gain you much. It is the *players* that make a game tick. What you suggest would be like learning how to write by analyzing a lot of books, without regard to what people *thought* about the books, without regard to how well the books communicated or entertained people.

Such a project wouldn't just be about analysis ("breaking down"). Analysis would also be followed by *synthesis* (putting back together). The breaking down into the three components would always be paired with resynthesizing and recombining...with a clear, concrete fruit in mind: producing a professional quality text that mimics exactly what each world/setting would look like if it were to have been "officially" licensed to be rendered in each rules set.

Yet I partly agree with you. This Total TRPG Corpus would only be Phase One.

Phase Two would be to take the fruits of this experience, and then write an archetypal TRPG (or a suite of TRPGs) which is meant to be the most fun and satisfying TRPG "ever made." For Phase Two, the likes and dislikes of player experience (including ourselves) would now come into play. For example, even if some aspects of OD&D were to be incorporated into our new system, we would, of course, ditch THAC0.

In my (admittedly uber-completist) view, to focus only on player satisfaction without having developed a conscious path and goal in regard to system-and setting-mastery, is one-sided and incomplete.

The analogy is not perfect...but it'd be something like trying to reach the World Series by commissioning academic studies as to what baseball fans like and dislike about baseball games. Granted, such studies could contain much useful information, but without developing a team of persons who had methodically mastered the on-the-field "baseball game system", the team would not reach the goal.

Take it all apart, and rearrange in all combinations does not tell you what *works*.

There would be at least three fruits from the experience:

1) There would now exist a professional quality Omni-Statted, Omniversal Total RPG Corpus, where "all" (or many) TRPG worlds and adventures are rendered in "all" (or many) TRPG systems. We'd have not only an "all system" conversion guide (which would be an awesome thing in itself...think Peter Atkinson's Envoy metasystem, but to the nth degree)...but we'd also have fully-converted texts. That is a concrete, practical fruit. (Though due to legal constraints, this might have to be an largely private corpus for the time being.)

2) The person or persons who had enacted this would have developed a certain mastery in this regard. Their conceptions, perceptions, and artistic-technical skill would be honed.

3) There would be a social/community-building aspect to traversing this experience as well.

The result being that much of the project becomes busy-work that produces things nobody would want.

If such an endeavor were to actually embark on the path of an all-system/all-setting conversion, there could be prioritization, so as to minimize busy-work. We could cover the key systems and settings first: those which have the largest, currently active TRPGs (e.g. the ones on ENWorld's "what's hot" lists), along with some key, less-popular, but representative "gems" from the OSR and Indie RPG world.

As demonstrated in the link I posted, it can give you much, much more information than that.

Yes, it's a cool article and diagram, which could be useful in Phase Two. I dig Ryan Dancey's contributions.

Now, your goal is also your methodology, which is circular.

C'mon...science is about questions. My questions are:

QUESTION ONE: "If ordinary practicalities were not a hindrance, what is the ultimate expression of TRPG system+setting conversion and localization?"

QUESTION TWO: "What components need to be separated (analyzed) and recombined (synthesized) in order to realize that ultimate expression?"

QUESTION THREE: "What is essential to each TRPG setting, and what is essential to each TRPG system?"

Granted, conventional academic journals do not care about those questions. But they're my questions. And "scientia" (in the widest sense of the word) is a tool for answering questions...what other way of knowing is there?

I admit I put the cart before the horse by not sharing in my OP the background for how I came to the Threefold Components (the answer to my Question Two), which need to be separated in order to realize the answer to my first question.

Question Three can only be realized by a hands-on, experiential path.

Your reply helped me express this more articulately.

An "RPG scientist" would say you are assuming the conclusion.

I'm not talking about some academic experiment conducted in a vacuum. I'm using "science" in a wider sense of "methodological thoroughness", and in a specific sense as it relates to this project: "a finely-tuned honing of one's perception of what is essential to each system and setting." If my using the word "scientist" is irksome--fine, I could use some other word. Yet no one has a monopoly on the word "scientist."

Science is always about human perception and human experience.

***

A bit of biographical background...my main D&D world was Mystara, and it always intrigued me how Mystara would be depicted in its two rule sets: Classic D&D and AD&D 2E. In the CD&D system, a famous NPC would be Thief or a Fighter...while in the 2E the same NPC is a Bard or Ranger! I really enjoyed trying to discern how the rules systems served as two different lenses for the same world. That is where I developed my special interest in the questions: What is essential to the system, and what is essential to the setting?

That this question has some relevance to the wider world is evident in the ongoing production of "localized" versions of settings, such as Freeport's conversion into 3E, Pathfinder, FATE, Savage Worlds, and Fantasy AGE.

I'm just taking the question and magnifying it to its ultimate conclusion...all systems + all settings.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472305-Breaking-the-Threefold-Components-and-recombining-them-for-a-Total-TRPG-Corpus#ixzz3r7AULaKP

***

[Here follows some earlier notes. This is an unfinished sandbox]

Goethe says that there is an archetypal idea and invisible form behind every phenomenon. This archetype can only be perceived in thought and imagination. The archetypal imagination can only be reached through actually perceiving the various versions which exist in front of our eyes--by immersing ourself in the phenomena, and mastering their intricacies and seeing how they unfold differently in one place or another, in different conditions. Then our ability to picture the formative principles behind these permutations will become more and more clear. As our image of the formative principles behind the various actual forms becomes clearer and more exact, our imagination and thought can--within this field of knowledge--become more and more predictive, organically creative, and applicable to practical uses.

This is a new kind of science called Goethean Science or Goethean Phenomenology. The difference from Conventional Science is that Goethean Science clearly distinguishes between phenomena and thought (ideas, theories). Ideas/thoughts/imaginations are perceptions of the non-physical world. Conventional Science is vulnerable to confusing thought systems with actual phenomena, and thus is vulnerable to falling into some abstract, one-sided trains of thought.

So what is the Archetypal RPG? I don't mean in an generic or abstract sense. I mean if one owned a copy of all the pen & paper RPGs ever produced since 1974 (the first publication of D&D), and were to fully absorb and master their rules systems, what sort of imaginative insight into RPG systems would result?

Though I only own a few RPGs, this page is my sandbox about the Archetypal RPG. It could also be more specifically about an "Archetypal Edition" of D&D.

For the first goal, the first thing to do would be to actually master every published RPG system. For just an "archetypal D&D", then only the various iterations of D&D would need to be studied and mastered.

Someone has already done some studies here:

Design Alternatives Analysis Archive http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/design-alternatives.html

The different kinds of mechanics are listed here: http://rpggeek.com/browse/rpgmechanic

Here is one basic concept which serves as a foundation:

Every RPG book is composed of three things:

rules system (the game mechanics) + setting content (the world) + trade dress (aesthetics, visual style)

In thought, these three things can be separated from each other and re-combined in any combination. For example, it is possible to clearly conceive of a book which uses the Cypher System from Monte Cook, to depict the setting of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but which uses the fonts, artwork-style, and graphic layout of say, Battlestar Galactica. Imagining these three factors in various strange combinations helps untangle what is rules, what is setting, and what is aesthetics.

This threefold composition is the "archetypal rpg book", though not "the archetypal rpg" itself.

A list of settings is available here: http://rpggeek.com/browse/rpgsetting

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_campaign_settings

There have only been so many RPG book titles published in the world. If one had one copy of every single title, including print-offs of PDF-only titles, published since 1974, the stack would still only be so big.

Just as Wikipedia strives to be available in every human language, so could, if legal hindrances were not in the way, every single rpg book published since 1974 be re-statted with every single rpg system. Every single campaign setting and adventure storyline would be available in every ruleset.

Every rules system which is not 100% seamlessly compatible, is considered to be a different rules set.

Here's a partial list: (A fuller list is here: http://rpggeek.com/browse/rpgsystem)

OD&D

Original Chainmail

B/X D&D

BECMI D&D

War Machine

RC/WotI D&D

AD&D 1e

AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana

1e Battlesystem

AD&D 2e

AD&D 2e Players/DMs Option

2e Battlesystem

SAGA

Alternity

D&D 3e

D&D 3.5e

3e Chainmail

d20 Modern

D&D 4e

D&D 4e Essentials

4e Co-operative Board Games

D&D 5e

True20

Iron Heroes

Arcana Unearthed

Castles & Crusades

Fantasycraft

Pathfinder

13th Age

OSRIC

BFRPG

Swords & Wizardry

Labyrinth Lord

Labyrinth Lord Original Edition Characters

Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG

Dungeon World

Adventures Dark & Deep

Tri-Stat

BRP

HERO System

GURPS

AGE

Chronicle

d6

Rolemaster Classic

Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying

Rolemaster Unified

HARP

Megaversal (Palladium)

Storyteller System

Storytelling System

Talislanta 4E (Archetypes system)

Talislanta 5E (Paths system)

FUDGE

Fate

Interlock

Instant Fuzion

Total Fuzion

Twilight: 2000

One-Role Engine (O.R.E.)

Mutants & Masterminds 1E, 2E, 3E

Classic Traveller (CT)

MegaTraveller (MT)

Marc Miller's Traveller (T4)

Mongoose Traveller (MGT)

T20

Traveller 5th (T5)

Unisystem Classic

Unisystem Cinematic

EABA

Cortex

Cortex Plus

CORPS (1E, 2E, 3E)

Savage Worlds

ICON

CODA

Cypher System

Universalis

World of Synnibar RPG system

Amber Diceless

HeroQuest

Prince Valiant

Pokemon Jr. Adventure Game

Every rules system--even if it's only used for one setting, or one product--is "stripped out" for use in all other rpg settings.

Every rpg rules system is converted and extended for use in:

1) Every setting-specific "intellectual property" which has ever been published as an RPG.

2) Every genre which has been covered by a genre RPG which was intended to be for use in any setting for a particular genre. For example, the Superhero genre or Old West genre.

3) The "generic universal genre", such as GURPS, True20, and Savage Worlds. Besides being localized to every setting IP, and to every genre, all rpg systems would also adapted for the "generic universal roleplaying genre".

What I mean by this is that a BECMI D&D Star Wars adaptation would have a certain set of classes which are specifically for the Star Wars Universe. But the BECMI D&D "sci-fi" genre adaptation (a la Alternity, d20 Future, Traveller, Space HERO, and Spacemaster) would have a somewhat different set of classes. And the full-blown "generic universal BECMI D&D" adaptation might be streamlined in its presentation of sci-fi classes, since that would only be one aspect of a multi-genre presntation of the BECMI rules.

Again, BECMI D&D would be adapted for use for each IP, such as Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and so forth. But also, BECMI D&D is extended as a setting-free genre game which covers Westerns (Sidewider) and Sci-fi (Alternity and d20 Future). And BECMI is expanded to be able to cover everything which has ever been touched on by such multi-genre systems as True20 and GURPS.

It will be necessary to aesthetically discern what is inherent to the rules system, and what is inherent to the setting. In some cases, this is tightly interwoven; for example, the less pronounced presence of half-elves and half-orcs in 2E Mystara is because BECMI didn't have those races; at least not in the core rules. But this would be artistically untangled.

"Localization" for all RPG rules systems.

Every existing RPG product ever produced (as long as it contains some setting, and is not only a rulebook) would be available with every single rules, as a print-on-demand book. The stats would be seamlessly plugged into the PDF, in the appropriate font and aesthetic.

For this, the goal would be to mimic the way the original designers thought--even to mimic their "design aesthetic", so that the conversion would look and feel exactly as it would if it were published by that same professional design team. Quirks, idiosyncracies, and all. For example, the 1e AD&D version of Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and DC Universe would be 100% compatible with its medieval fantasy rules. Those space opera classes, modern classes, and superhero classes could multiclass with the Fighter, Thief, and so forth. There'd be racial level limits for non-humans (unless this was clearly perceived to be only an inherent feature of World of Greyhawk and the D&D Multiverse). There'd be lower strength limits for female PCs. This is about being true to each rules system as it exists. Warts and all.

As an example:

Rules: BECMI D&D

Setting: Star Wars

Four human classes: Jedi, Noble, Scoundrel, and Soldier. (Scout is subsumed into Scoundrel or Soldier, in a similar way that there was no Ranger class in BECMI. The four classes match the "design aesthetic" of BECMI.). Every non-human race is a different class. However, the extended rules in later BECMI books, such as Dwarf Cleric, Warrior Elf, Elf Paladin, Elf Wizard, and Half-Elf, Lupin & Rakasta (who can use any human class), would be something to consider including in the core rules. All the xp progression, combat rules, and so forth, would be straight from BECMI D&D, even to the extent of being 100% mechanically compatible.

However, the Scout would be a class in the 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e D&D versions of Star Wars.

The 3e version of Star Wars would be very similar to the existing d20 Star Wars, except that it'd be 100% seamlessly compatible, and so would use hit points, and PCs could multiclass with the Star Wars classes.

Even the Prince Valiant Story-Telling Game is stripped out to become a universal game system, with its two attributes: Brawn and Presence. Even Amber Diceless is adapted for every world and genre. Whatever is inherent to the World of Amber is removed, and whatever is inherent to the rules itself is retained, adapted, and extended, while still being 100% compatible with Amber RPG.

The existing official conversion guides would be one resource. I'm gathering official conversion guides here:

• • The BECMI D&D to AD&D 1e conversion guides in the back of the Gazetteers.

  • The RC/WotI D&D to AD&D 2e conversion guide in the Rules Cyclopedia.

  • The 2e to 3e conversion guide by WotC. It theoretically covered converting 1e and RC/WotI D&D to 3e too.

  • The 3.5e to Pathfinder conversion guide.

  • The d20 Modern to 3E conversion guide (I think it was Urban Arcana or the d20 Modern core book.)

  • The MERP to Rolemaster to AD&D conversions included in many of ICE products. It may be noted that RM had an underlying motivation to be a "higher level" trump over its TSR competitor. And so this high level would only be used for converting AD&D to RM. But when converting RM to AD&D, the RM high-level classes would be collapsed into the AD&D 1e level limits.

  • D&D to True20 conversion: http://true20.com/2008/12/09/converting_d20_to_true20-2/

I'm only looking for official ones right now, because amateur conversion guides are often bent by features from their own home campaigns, and often don't yet clearly succeed in mimicking the thinking of the original design team.

Also, every setting which has been depicted through more than one rpg rules system, and every rules system which has depicted more than one setting, are resources for perceiving what is essential to the rules system, and what is essential to the setting. These depictions can be used to "reverse engineer" the essential form of each of those rules sets (and each of those settings).

Reverse engineering would be an important tool in such an endeavor.

I think if someone absorbed all this, and also sought out experience with how these various rules mechanics interacted with actual human beings in everyday play (in other words, how the rules are liked or disliked by various souls), this person or team (along with playtester feedback) could make an RPG which was a step beyond anything which has been produced so far...a sort of "Seventh Edition" RPG.