OSINT-6 CHANGELOG 260724
There was another lengthy team discussion re: the use of imperial (US Customary) v. metric measurement standards in the game. The decision to remain with imperial standards won out over noted objections, based on the following factors:
SRD 5.2.1 uses imperial measurements and this follows that established standard.
Conversion will require additional labor for questionable benefit to the final game.
The majority of the game’s potential audience is assumed to reside in the United States based on commonly available sales figures for the tabletop roleplaying industry, where imperial measurements remain the standard.
The audience outside of the United States is accustomed to American games using imperial measurements so following this standard should not be unexpected or unusual.
Noted objections included the following:
Following imperial measurement standard when the global standard is metric, with only the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar not on the metric system, could be interpreted as a political statement rather than a design choice.
This objection was countered by a note that leaving the imperial measurement standard could also be interpreted as a political statement. If a person is looking for something to object to, it is inevitable that they will find something so this should not be a factor in making game design choices.
The academic and scientific communities universally use the metric measurement standard, which aligns better with the tone and intentions of the game.
This was countered with a note that academic and scientific information in the game is for setting and background, and does not directly affect the rules and mechanics.
The decimal basis of the metric measurement standard arguable eases the math required for the game system
This objection was countered by a note that the 5.2.1 rules and mechanics are neither inherently metric nor imperial and represent their own standard; that measures are used for tactical purposes and therefore are more abstract than concrete and subject to interpretation, rendering the question largely moot from a design perspective.
Added the Reference page under the Rules dropdown with links to resources used in the creation of the Core Rulebook and the Factbooks.
Removed the FAQ explaining the project’s relationship to the previous intellectual property holder. A team member likened it to explaining who the previous tenant of the office was, when that company has gone out of business and the owners have retired. It adds nothing to the conversation of who we are and what we do.
The core rulebook currently has 434 tables, of which 15 still need formatting and rewriting, not counting any errors or adjustments that may be discovered during the editing process.