My first inclination or reaction to the username "vermonster" was to think of cryptoids such as bigfoot or Champ (lake Champlain's version of the Lock Ness Monster. A creature applicable to Brad Younie's The Unexplained RPG for example. When Doug said that his first thought was of a large rustic person ("monster for him creating connotations of "large" as in monster truck or monster sale) I was surprised since my first association to "monster" was of a creature (to many old House of Hammer Horror movies I guess). It just shows how a seed single word can lead to widely different adventure ideas.

What sort of crazy nutjob would request a forum seed?

Regarding the article, the biggest and most obvious issue I saw was the lack of an intro paragraph that explained what this was. The introduction was so long that I was suspecting that Vermonster was trying to stat out a pseudo scientific system that he actually believed, and the article felt aimless. There were more specific concerns as well, but those are pending a better read through.

I do not understand your "joke" about my use of the coined phrase "forum seed" (that from which a forum discussion grows).  Is that not what you did to accumulate comments about "A New Dimension to Gunfire"?  What is the correct etiquette?  I misread Paul's comment (to you actually) to suggest the use of a forum.

As to my writing style, you are probably correct that I tend to lay the foundation before I put in the upstairs windows with the great view.  I felt my introduction was the example with Dr, Carl Fairchild's come-n-go knowledge of foreign languages.  I had hoped it was enough of a teaser to draw interest (or said enough for a reader to discontinue wasting his/her time if disinterested).

My joke is that I was pretty much the one who said it should go to a forum (I was unaware of Paul's further comment reinforcing the idea), and I'm also the one claiming that doing so is the action of a crazy nutjob.

As far as the introduction goes, that can work, but at some point the upstairs windows with the great view need installation. Then there are the gaps in the foundation. The GTSC skills are introduced, but lack a GM section regarding how the tests they would be made against should be implemented. The generic memorization skill seems odd, particularly if it defaults to fair, and could probably be better handled with a gift. Elsewhere (particularly in death of a GTSC person), the sheer number of GTSC people is problematic, while it is stated that there aren't many the whole future connection makes that strain verisimilitude, unless the future is somewhat limited. Furthermore, there is the matter of just how long humans have been around.

Overall, its very good. I have quibbles, but no great criticism.

The Fudge stuff is my weakest link.  I am not sure how the Action Resolution (and Situation Check) section was not your suggested guidelines to GMs on how to implement GTSC (inexpertly outlined as they may be).  Can you be more specific what I missed to improve my next attempt at suggesting some bit of weirdness that crosses my mind as an interesting quirk for RPG play?

As to the math with future generations of GTSC individuals, yes, it is more a rationalization to justify a conclusion that I wanted for the magnitude of the GTSC/STM interference than "good science".  Paul, the evil GM, seemed to instinctually zero in on the potential to "dramatize" the GTSC character's life with the crosstalk and the traumatic linkage to others in the network.   The math for the previous 120 centuries (since 10,000 BC) of 1:100,000,000 births and only 10% survivorship to adulthood works out to about 100 pre-20th century GTSC adults (from about 1000 births).  But, by the 20th century, the additions to the adult pool was about 12 per century.   At that rate, the GTSC adult doubles in less than another millenium.  If it continues to double each century, the pool will be 7-8 times larger in 8 centuries.  Not allowing reality to get in the way of a good story is what RPG is best at if the GM/players don't want it to.  Math with a grain of fudge.

This is off-topic with regard to HyperMemory, but I made an observation on another topic in these forums the other day that FUDGE draws in people with a very widely diverse playing and GMing styles (see post here). I almost thing we should create come kind of playing style micro-badges or icons that people can add to their signatures. Example:

Paul Dupuis
Rules Light; Flavor Details Heavy

Some folks love Fudge for it's lack of detail, other use it to create detail. Each to their own. Maybe I will start a new poll.

paul wrote:

This is off-topic with regard to HyperMemory, but I made an observation on another topic in these forums the other day that FUDGE draws in people with a very widely diverse playing and GMing styles (see post here). I almost thing we should create come kind of playing style micro-badges or icons that people can add to their signatures. Example:

Paul Dupuis
Rules Light; Flavor Details Heavy

Some folks love Fudge for it's lack of detail, other use it to create detail. Each to their own. Maybe I will start a new poll.

This is the very thing that drew me to Fudge.  I love its flexibility in creating games that are light, heavy and everything in between!