Kicking it off ... with a question!

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Rules are very much down to individual taste. I don't believe that they influence the feel of the setting itself though - ultimately they're pretty much all the same apart from in character generation, and all that does is determine how the player makes his character - it should be fairly straightfoward to make as close as dammit exactly the same character given any rule system though.

No, if they are done correctly, players should really not feel the rules very much at all.

This is how you make a character.

Roll over such-n-such to complete this or that task.

That should honestly be about it.

My core rpg philosophy is that players should play and the ref should rule.

But it matters for the ref a lot.

No the rules do not impact the setting directly.

However, I believe that Traveller is more than just a mileu in which to play.

I think that the rules are important too.

I started out with Megatraveller from D&D and it blew me away from a mechanics point of view.

1. A d6 based simple Task System -- The UTP was like an epiphany after the endless pages of charts I had grown use to with AD&D. Everything is a task. There are modifiers to the task but in the end it all just a task.

2. The idea that armor is not a To-Hit modifier. It reduces damage. The pen/atten was a bit complex and smacked off wargaming overkill but damn it was elegant.

3. Lifepath based chargen focused around careers. This was a revolution after the random D&D set of no background and the point based giveaway almost of other systems. BTW, if a quickchargen can also quickly forge an idea of the characters past life then that would completely work in my opinion.

4. Tools for a referee to create everything from a grav bike to a starship from a planet to the sector of space it exists in with a few dice rolls and have the results to be somewhat consistent.

Am I blind to that version's failings?

Heck no.

Tons of errata.

Design system that ticked off old-school gearheads.

The mileu tied into the player's handbook and the referee manual through sideline nuggets re-inforcing a mileu change a lot of old-timers did not dig.

An experience system with a random dice roll element which made players hurl dice at the ref's head.

Still, I guess another question for another thread is how the GURPS game mechanics fit into the CT/MT feel for playing?

 

[Malenfant]

Still, I guess another question for another thread is how the GURPS game mechanics fit into the CT/MT feel for playing?

Why compare them though? "Feel" is entirely subjective. What is it about CT/MT that somehow makes gaming different from GT? The level of detail? The fact that you roll 2d6 for everything instead of 3d6? Does that really make the game so radically different to play??

If people just took the systems for what they are and used whatever they prefer, they'd find that CT and GT are actually pretty much the same background.

 

[Elliot]

Which brings in the interesting question of how an author's/editor's style affects the way a game is perceived by gamers.

It seems to me that a modicum of what is discussed as 'canon' or setting can be put down to writer's style. Compare Mr Miller's very minimalistic style (like the design of the LBB) to the more chatty style of Joe Fugate Sr or the slightly didactic style of Loren Wiseman. The perception of the game is affected by the ghost of the author in a very real but also ethereal sense.

Also:

Right now you're coming across as another one of these frothing pseudoreligious canon nuts that think CT is The One True Way.

I prefer Megatraveller myself: which is probably why I see the GT setting as unsatisfying.

Ancient rhetoricians were always of the opinion that argumentum ad hominem was not the best way to have a constructive debate. I agree with those learned ancient authors, and that is why I will not respond in kind.

By the way, I said nothing about GT not selling or being popular in the RPG market, that is a misinterpretation of what I meant: I know it has ok sales, and all power to those that play it, or sit at home alone with Far Trader working out the trade density in their pet cluster of the Solomani Rim. If that pleases people, well good for them. However, I cant imagine my players of old (all people of above average imagination and education) being particularly enamoured by the regurgitation of someone else's mathematical economics 101 textbook. If i'm wrong, so be it.

Anyway, I tire of this type pugilism, so I wish you well.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Elliot:
[QB]Ancient rhetoricians were always of the opinion that argumentum ad hominem was not the best way to have a constructive debate. I agree with those learned ancient authors, and that is why I will not respond in kind.

Really. I suppose you expect me to believe that your generally hostile attitude to GT and your labelling of it as "heretical" was 'constructive'? If you want constructive debate from others, I suggest you practice what you preach.

Also, you were completely wrong in your assumptions about the game. If you want to get all sanctimonious with it instead of admitting you were wrong then that's entirely up to you.

By the way, I said nothing about GT not selling or being popular in the RPG market, that is a misinterpretation of what I meant:

You said:
(i.e. this has become a collectors game that is remembered fondly but no-one plays anymore except as solo play)

This is not an accurate represenation of what GURPS Traveller is, or how popular it is, or how many people play it - it is very much an active game.

Perhaps in future you should take more care to explain yourself properly and/or check your facts before you make blanket statements like that.

I know it has ok sales, and all power to those that play it, or sit at home alone with Far Trader working out the trade density in their pet cluster of the Solomani Rim. If that pleases people, well good for them.

There are certainly people like that - we just had a big ol' argument about it on JTAS, in fact.
But I don't see any evidence to suggest that all GURPS Traveller players do that. And also, I suspect that GT's sales must be more than merely "OK" if there are still books being released and in development (GT Nobles has just appeared on the SJG release schedule for May 2004).

However, I cant imagine my players of old (all people of above average imagination and education) being particularly enamoured by the regurgitation of someone else's mathematical economics 101 textbook. If i'm wrong, so be it.

I can't either. But certainly not everyone interested in GURPS Traveller is so concerned about economics or other 'realism' issues. To be honest, regarding the economic/social/political side, I don't care a jot about it and am somewhat sick of seeing the same discussions and flamewars over and over. But you could see easily the same arguments on a CT forum - it's something that cuts across all Traveller lines.

 

[plop101]

Ack asks:

Why GURPS?

I started looking at GURPS after I messed with TNE.

What do you like about GURPS versus T20 or even running old school rules like CT or MT or T4 or whatever?

GURPS vs T20: GURPS chargen is very much easier.
GURPS vs CT: Plus:More skills in GURPS than CT.
Minus: Darn difficult to have one man scout ship in GURPS.
GURPS vs MT: close combat and space combat much easier in MT. Both have errata issues. I'd give MT the edge here.

How do you feel about Steve Jackson Games?

Just another game company. No special feelings.

I use GURPS with CT enhanced/MT characters; I'll chargen with CT/MT, then I'll convert with GURPS to add character detail. The other GURPS books I use for Chrome. Mostly I still live in CT/MT land, but I'll borrow stuff from others as necessary.

I borrow from T20 too, but not as much as GT.

As for what I would use if I could only have one system, well, lets put it this way:

I LUST FOR CT!

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

My my my...

I got gripes with a lot of things about how its all laid out, but still enjoy the game tremendously (esp in CT or t20 form)

My gripes with Gurps:

1. The stuff is EXPENSIVE for what it is. (at least where I live... though I recently got all 4 alien books for 20.00! Thanks, Stiggybaby!)

2. They Do TOO much for ya. Yeah yeah. It may be a weird statement, but I am of a stripe that likes to fill in me own blanks (keeps the mind sharp, what?) Don't get me wrong, they do some top drawer stuff, and really stepped up on production values and art (Save the CG stuff, which I think looks horrible, IMO) but to what end? I would much rather have collected larger books of materials rather than passels of ultra-specific books. If they start coming out with "GURPS: Third Shift Cardboard Box Manufacturers" and such... it would bear out that Steve Jackson seeks to cover the world in hexes...
I like detail. But there are limits and a large difference between doing your own research or relying on a distillation of facts...

3. I like the idea that they blew off that horrific MT setting in favor of a continuing 3I, but (and this is an abstract) they sort of go to far with it. Many loudly claim that GT is the "best" for whatever reason, but at the end of the day it seems like a carpetbagger to me. I guess its a question of tastes.

4. Maybe its me, or just the groups that I have been exposed to, but for some reason, Gurps People seem well, snobbish at times... I like a good game that moves forward at a good clip, but a lot of Gurps Games, inparticular the SF related ones, often seem to breakdown into incredibly convoluted discussions about superflous minutae. I have met many that could be categorized as "hostile" to other game systems.

Other than that, Its a very good system, even if it isn't Traveller (because its Gurps)

But to be fair, I got gripes with the many faces of Traveller in general, not just GT. Most of these take the form of sloppiness of mechanincs/errata in the later systems, and the implied compulsion that you must stick to the established background (mostly during the black days of MT and T4). In the early days, it was easy to adapt anything to CT, but it became more and more evident that it lost its adaptability... now at least , thanks to the many fine programs available, you can REALLY choose wether or not to use the background. Some of the old supplements might have been a touch dry as collections of NPCs and the like, but I can remember not really being that motivated to program my own data generators onto the tape drive of my ViC 20...

I really don't like the religious terminology in use to describe backgrounds or expressions of ideas about it. It's a game after all, and all this talk of Canon and Heretics makes me uneasy...
its not a question of respect or reverence, its one of silliness...

 

[Danger]

GURPS gives one a big toolbox by which to create their game, be it fantasy, sci-fi, or other.

Due to their breadth of sourcebooks, both in print and out of print for GURPS, I think its a safe bet that whatever you desire in terms of magic, equipment, etc. is out there somewhere.

GURPS Traveller, I think, is a wonderful effort to keep the Traveller flag-a-flyin', and this only goes to promote the overall effort. Its just one slice of the pie, in other words.

At this point in time, GURPS isn't the only kid on the block trying to be "it" in the universal game rules department; d20, BESM, Fuzion, Hero et al all bring a similar plate to the table. The difference is in the approach and how rules are implemented.

Having said that, the sheer possibilities available to a GURPS GM, the number of books that they think that they might need, and the "feel" of using game mechanics that aren't part of the original system may be detractors to the use of GURPS.

Your system preference depends on who you are and (maybe) what kind of gaming group you are dealing with.

Suffice to say that in the end, your choice of system doesn't matter. The overall support of Traveller should be the goal.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Indeed, Sir! Well Put!

I do have 1 question about it... was it based at first of off the early Hero Games Champions System? The Operations of it seem very similar... I remeber playing AutoDuel back when it came out...

So, If you can make an 11 or less knowledge Roll, do you know what that connection between the two was?

 

[Danger]

Hmmm...

Right off hand, I'd like to say that I read somewhere that Steve Jackson gives credit to Champions/Hero for his point based approach to character building (which in of itself was unique for chargen in a game in the hoary, old gaming days of yore and has been copied several times since) as well as giving credit to his prior works in the Fantasy Trip too.

Without specifics to back it up, I'd not put too much stock in what I say, though. Gut feeling tells me that GURPS is SJ's idea of Hero.

 

[aramis]

Most of the "Combat Mechanics" of GURPS come directly from TFT. (I play TFT. Especially the solo stuff... I really wish the Modern and SciFi rules had been publihsed...)

In the 1st ed GURPS rules, he credits Hero Games' Champions for the point based approach. He also mentions that GURPS is essentially a sibling design to TFT (Probably to avoid lawsuit from the remenants of Metagaming).

To be honest, though, in 1st ed, SJ stated that GURPS points represented specific amounts of learning time, and NOT specifically point ballance. That seems to have changed by 3rd ed, though I'd wager that, ouside a no-mana area, a 500 point wizard is far more dangerous than a 500 point normal, or maybe even a 500 point super or psionicist.

Hero, though was and still is "Points are a ballance factor only".

Another big difference: GURPS has always been "Bend it to fit GURPS" in re settings, rather than hero Games pre-4th ed approach of "Bend Hero/Fuzion to fit the Genre".

 

[daryen]

Another big difference: GURPS has always been "Bend it to fit GURPS" in re settings, rather than hero Games pre-4th ed approach of "Bend Hero/Fuzion to fit the Genre".

I, for one, don't fully understand this old saw against GURPS.

Personally, I think that the "bend it to fit GURPS" is a good thing. The reason is that it completely opens up the other (non-Traveller) source books for use. (And more easily allows other settings to use Traveller books.)

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Another big difference: GURPS has always been "Bend it to fit GURPS" in re settings, rather than hero Games pre-4th ed approach of "Bend Hero/Fuzion to fit the Genre".

I, for one, don't fully understand this old saw against GURPS.

Personally, I think that the "bend it to fit GURPS" is a good thing. The reason is that it completely opens up the other (non-Traveller) source books for use. (And more easily allows other settings to use Traveller books.) </font>[/QUOTE]Well, take for example, World of Ogre. Several extant ogre-line products make it clear that even infaantry lob tacnukes. GURPS Ogre comes along, and makes several changes to the setting, in order to make it fit GURPS. Then, some Ogre players say "Nope, your infantry are NOT lobbing tac nukes, despite what Battlesuit says!" Likewise, by GO, yo need a critical hit to penetrate a heavy tank with the main gun of an LGEV, despite the fact that it was a 1/6th chance per volley of disabling and 1/6th chance of killing the Hvy in the Ogre boardgame. Doesn't reflect the setting.

Likewise, SV Cole said recently that SJG won't let them write any new rules nor rewrite existing ones for GURPS: Prime Directive. So, certain things in GPD are supported only by fiat... like klingons holding dual ranks (Navy AND Marine separately)... you don't buy dual ranks.... you buy the higer one, and the lower one is free, based upon on-line discussions, but you're not going to see that explicit in print, as the "Official" is that you have to buy all ranks.

Now, take GT. GT is a traveller variant. Not canonical at all, officially, for any other traveller settings/materials. And yet, several GT materials are being used to argue against setting-canon elements of T20, despite the fact that T20 is OTU setting canon, and GT is not; despite the fact that they are taken from extant canon which GT contradicts.

Some people like that. Some detest it.
Benefits: Internal systemic consistancy. Easier for the line developers.
Problems: Setting Purists will be upset at changes to licensed settings (G:B&B torqued off a few people... as did Lensman, GPD, and GT). Compatability with original setting material compromised. Certain settings become absurdly out-of-scale (Lensman, wiht 5000 point characters being beginning lensmen, but having far less range, and far fewer competencies than the books would tend to indicate...)

It's not just an old saw. IT IS A FACT OF THE DESIGN/LICENSING/MARKETING!!!! one which one needs be very wary of...

Both modes have their value. But, by the same token, it makes for some interesting sideline discussions...

Big ones: GT has sliding scale shipping costs, OTU does not, never has, and unless MWM has been GURPS-ized, probably never will, simply for simplicity's sake; realism be damned. one of dozens of issues.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Now, take GT. GT is a traveller variant. Not canonical at all, officially, for any other traveller settings/materials. And yet, several GT materials are being used to argue against setting-canon elements of T20, despite the fact that T20 is OTU setting canon, and GT is not; despite the fact that they are taken from extant canon which GT contradicts.

I don't think that's correct. GT follows canon up to Strephon's assassination. T20 canon is obviously over a century before Strephon's assassination - so therefore GT canon and T20 canon (and CT canon) must be consistent.

AFAIK, GURPS only diverges from OTU canon *after* Strephon's assassination.

Also, the GT setting is essentially what you'd have if the CT universe was allowed to continue after 1116 without Strephon being killed and the civil war starting. Considering that many people complain about the civil war and all of its consequences (including TNE), I'd have thought more people would actually prefer the GT Third Imperium setting, since it retains the old CT background.

Problems: Setting Purists will be upset at changes to licensed settings (G:B&B torqued off a few people... as did Lensman, GPD, and GT).

I think people complain more about GURPS Traveller because of the system rather than the setting. If they're complaining about the setting being changed, they're missing a major point - it's exactly the same as CT's setting, just moved on a few years.

Big ones: GT has sliding scale shipping costs, OTU does not, never has, and unless MWM has been GURPS-ized, probably never will, simply for simplicity's sake; realism be damned. one of dozens of issues.

It amazes me that people think something that trivial can change the whole feel of the game. The world design system is very different in GT too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the Traveller Universe - it doesn't suddenly change everything that planets are more realistic than in CT. It's the same universe. You can find all the tropes of a CT 3I setting in a GT universe. Yes, some rules details are different because of the translation to GURPS, but you get that with any translation to a different game engine. But honestly, does it really make that much of a difference to playing the game?

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Likewise, SV Cole said recently that SJG won't let them write any new rules nor rewrite existing ones for GURPS: Prime Directive.

Wow! I had no idea anyone outside the ADB boards had even heard of GPD. This is good news.

Now, take GT. GT is a traveller variant. Not canonical at all, officially, for any other traveller settings/materials. And yet, several GT materials are being used to argue against setting-canon elements of T20, despite the fact that T20 is OTU setting canon, and GT is not; despite the fact that they are taken from extant canon which GT contradicts.

Uh, GT itself is no more a "Traveller variant" than is T20. Heck, if you really want to get down to it, the argument that the TNE system is only a "Traveller variant" is quite supportable.

While there are some known mistakes in GT backstory, the vast bulk of it is reasonably accurate. The "history" in GT is canon, up to 1116. Or at least supposed to be.

And, I am willing to bet that if T20 were to ever move into the Spinward Marches (either in 1105 or 993), you will see just as many 'canon' issues with it as you do with GT. T20 is currently playing it safe by staying in a previously undefined area with little canon to worry about.

It's not just an old saw. IT IS A FACT OF THE DESIGN/LICENSING/MARKETING!!!! one which one needs be very wary of...

Well, OK. But I still think my point is a valid marketing point.

Doing GT (or T20, for that matter) is already going to piss off the "It ain't CT" crowd. You aren't going to win them over, anyway. So why worry about it? If you are going to use an existing system (whether GURPS or T20), then it would seem to be in the designer's best interests to keep within the system as much as possible.

Because if you do break the existing system to "make it Traveller", then what do you really end up with? It still isn't "really" Traveller (because it isn't CT), and it isn't the existing system (because you broke it to make it "fit"), either. Now who's the market?

 

[rancke]

IMO people are getting into fearful muddles through not distinguishing properly between rules systems and game settings.

CT is a rules set. MT is a rules set. TNE is a rules set. T4 is a rules set. GT is a rules set. T20 is a rules set.

The Official Traveller Universe is a game setting. The GURPS Traveller Universe is a setting. That part of the two settings that lies prior to Year 1116 resembles each other very, very much. So much that you can't tell them apart. (Well, they are supposed to anyway).

Milieu 0 and the T20 Era (I don't know if it has a specific name; Milieu 1000?) and the CT Era are periods in the Official Traveller Universe AND in the GURPS Traveller Universe. The Rebelllion and Hard Times and The New Era are periods in the OTU but not in the GTU.

You can use CT and MT and TNE and T4 and T20 and GT to run adventures in any time in both the OTU and the GTU (And in our individual Traveller universes, of course). And in the Twilight 2000/2300 A.D. universe, come to that. I've run Traveller adventures in the Classic Era using my own house rules and for the last two years a friend of mine used T20 rules to run tournament games set in the New Era.


Hans

 

[Danger]

And in the "insult to injury" category (in regards to this topic), Steve Jackson is now coming out with the 4th edition of GURPS, which purports to cut down on the rules bloat/complexity of the current line.

While I applaud this move, it should have been taken care of sooner when SJG moved from just needing the core book and the sourcebook(s) to "needing" the core book, the first compendium, the sourcebook, etc. to play the game.

But, the move to the new edition means that 3rd ed. stuff should be going for cheap, and that means my GURPS pile show grow ever larger! Bwahahahahaha!

 

[Romeo 113]

Gurps..no levels...D20 level after level..more hit points..version 3.5..blah,blah..Maybe it's just me?!

 

[aramis]

GT is licensed to be Non-authoritative (rules/setting)
T20 is licences to be setting authoritative (but not rules authoritative)
CT, MT, TNE were rules and setting authoritative
T4 was licensed as rules and setting.

None of them jive compleatly.
I counted some dozen (many relatively tirvial) differences between the GTU and the OTU pre 1116. It also has defined, in ways no other traveller line has, way to F*ing much nigling detail that, for the people I game with, invalidates their views, and poisons potential player pools, who neither understand, nor care, that GT is niether setting nor rules authoritative for "Traveller".

Now, take another example: in order to recreate the abilities of a CT psionicist in GT, you either jack up the point totals (into the 200+ range for comparable ranges for even PSR 5 characters), shorten the ranges, or do other "Stupid Math Tricks", or you write a different psionics system. (Or, you use the GURPS magic system... which is point wise far more reasonable). GT takes the "Jack Up the Points" mode. putting psionics outside the realm of PC's. Also, it makes playing Zhodani seriously munchkin. That one issue, however, demands examination for the GTU... Psionicists, fully 5% of Zhodani society, are well over 200 points! A PSR 12 multi-talent character has ranges that will cost into the multiple thousand point range...

Essentially, GURPS changes things without noticing it has changed them, simply by mandating "No changes to extant rules" and intercompatability. Not as bad as some other variations I've seen for GURPS, but it does change things. (GPD being the worst offender... I will not play it... and I am sorta active on the SFU boards... )

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Aramis:
None of them jive compleatly.

Mind you, that comment equally applies *WITHIN* a rules version. (May I site the dreaded Jump Torpedo?)

It also has defined, in ways no other traveller line has, way to F*ing much nigling detail that, for the people I game with, invalidates their views, and poisons potential player pools, who neither understand, nor care, that GT is niether setting nor rules authoritative for "Traveller".

We've had very different experiences. I won't play GURPS (rhymes with burps for a reason, to my mind) if you hold an FGMP to my head, but my group has found a lot to like in that fleshing out that you so despise. We've found that it fills in a lot of lacking details we didn't care to fill in, that it has a more consistent internal logic than much of the other published materials (ish), and that it provides much interesting colour for the game, along with a nice look at a non-Rebellion universe.

And to my mind, any players that are 'poisoned' by a set of rules, feel any such construct invalidates their views, or don't care or bother to understand the game enough to understand the relationships between different variants, just really aren't trying very hard to be anything but difficult and I would not be in a real rush to play with such blinkered and self-centered folk. (That's only my view, and obviously no short description does justice to a reality, so take it with a big grain of salt).

I mean, other games have had D20 and non-D20 versions and other games have had multiple fairly incompatible rulesets and historical supplements. So do they just try to mentally jam these all into the same pot and just lift what suits them at a given moment?

And despite this tendency to pick and choose what they agree with (since things contradict in many places), how can they also have their views invalidated (since they're inventing them) and be trying to say that one thing or another is authoritative? Sounds to me like they are assembling their own TU and trying to jam it down their ref's throat. That's not what I call being a good player.

If you want that kind of control, climb behind the screen. And if you're terminally lazy enough not to at least try to understand if the ref explains to you about different rules versions etc, then what sympathy do you deserve as a player? You're not making much effort, are you?

People that are very retentive about clinging to a particular hard and fast set of rules and trying to see to it that they have the only correct view should be playing chess or checkers, where the rules are set and there is one official version. RPGs don't operate on those rules, and the sooner players get used to that, the happier time they'll have.

Now, take another example: in order to recreate the abilities of a CT psionicist in GT, you either jack up the point totals (into the 200+ range for comparable ranges for even PSR 5 characters),

Probably also true for special forces type characters that Merc Book 4 can spit out.

Essentially, GURPS changes things without noticing it has changed them, simply by mandating "No changes to extant rules" and intercompatability.

It has only 'changed' them if you have a prior fixed religiously held view of what 'the real story' is. No one ever promised that GURPs was somehow compatible ruleswise with CT. CT has broken starship trade, GT is a lot closer to workable. But some folks would rather cling to CT's version 'because it were printed first, dang it!'.

GURPS is an alternate conception of the game that just 'coincidentally' has some setting similarities. It's a 'mirror universe' thing.

But then, a lot of people think of TNE and Hard Times and T4 that way too.

Heck, some even eschew the sublime MT...

 

[aramis]

Not saying MT is all the OneTrueWay... oh, wait, yeah, I have made that claim before...

Seriously, tho', GT diverges further and further... as more gets published... and it is the GURPSies cramming GURPS-drek at me as tho it was "Divine revelation from The Traveller Gawd Marc". Its not. If it contradicts T20 settingwise, it's WRONG. Just as if it contradicted T4, TNE, MT, or CT setting. Make that contraticts them for pre 1116 materials.

(Well, in terms of MT and TNE, by terms of license, GT has an internal canonicity issue; somethings are canon for GT that knowingly contradict MT and TNE, since the predicate rebellion never happens in the GTU...)

Much of the blame rests SQUARELY with GT refs. Refs who preach GT as the OTU, even post 1116....

A disclaimer in the front of the GT core book in RED would help.

I'm not opposed to GT itself... GT is for a wholly different crowd than those I play with....

cause System Does Matter... http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ Seriously, the article in question sheds light on why I think GURPS is a good set of rules, but NOT FOR ME...

and the GTU is not for me... I like the rebellion. It made sense. I'd noticed the bit about the assassinations and barracks emperors before MT was announced.

Never cared for virus. Wrote to GDW against it when it was announced. But kind of accepted it... (actually, avoid it, since I won't run after hard times any more...)