Ah, very interesting assessment! I hadn’t considered this, but I think you’re definitely onto something. Part of this ties in with the way I talk about setting up the right expectations when playing a new game. I definitely wanted something more akin to an in-depth RPG character, yet the mechanical numbers played a major role.

I also wonder if this was designed to give non-RPG players a taste of the world, while those who prefer a narrative would naturally gravitate towards the RPG. Thanks for sharing and bringing up some thought-provoking points!

For some people the mechanics are a compact way of describing the character – “a pretty good pilot but not the best in the world” maps to “Piloting-16”. Then when there’s some question about whether something will work, you have a mechanical way of finding out. But it’s basically there to describe the imaginary person whose adventures you are following, not a goal in itself.

For other people (and I think a lot of dungeon-bash boardgames take this approach) the mechanics are the point – what matters is the +1 sword skill, the +10 hit points, and the person they theoretically represent becomes secondary.

I don’t think either of these is wrong (though I’m firmly in camp A) but when both sides use the same terminology it can lead to expectation mismatch. I wonder whether the designers felt that people who wanted more of a narrative would simply play the RPG?