> So I can only assume that what he's complaining about is that
the lack
> of an occupation keyword means that such a profession is no longer
encouraged
> for PCs, which he believes to be a retrograde step.
Not speaking for David (any of them...) but it's certainly what I was commenting on. I shall not offer any opinion as to whether or not this is a step in any direction - As David Dunham (or possibly Roderick) said, it's not like its exactly hard to make up an occupation keyword for your own game in the mean time (and any bits you miss will default to 17 anyway...) Although one symptomn of an urban lifestyle and a long history of fantasy role-playing with it's associated novels & films is that I could probably do "adventurer" keywords easier than "farmer" ones ;).
>To which my reply would
> be that there is space only for so many keywords in the basic
rulebook, and
> IMO, the choice of which to include, and which to leave for Thunder
Rebels
> was a good one. YMMV, of course...
>
Not by very much, if at all. Mass exposure to the tales of the SFC
and reports of other "clan based" games notwithstanding, I think a
RPG which included farmer keywords but not "traditional adventure"
ones would be far more radical than one which uses Action Points not
Hit Points!
Powered by hypermail