In some ways, it seems like SWN's classes fit the same model as WRM's (3 broad professions), except that the structure of the rules isn't the same. Could be a starting point for making a sci-fi version of WRM though.

I was thinking about that the other day, some. Both the fantasy and pulp versions of WRM offer three "classes" that are roughly the same:

Fighting
Functional Skills
Academic Skills (and extra-ordinary abilities)

Only, they use different names. I think, if I were to write the generic version of WRM, it would have 4 professions that had the same names across all genres (and have Talents that let you give them genre specific flair, so that the only difference between a "Fantasy Warrior" and a "Sci-fi Warrior" isn't just one carries a broadsword, and the other carries a laser-sword):

Warrior (incl. "Resolute" from RAG)
Adept (Mage/Psychic/etc. — Mystical and Paranormal abilities, but not the mundane aspects of "Scholar")
Genius (incl. "Scholar" from WRM — Academic Knowledge, and creative endeavors)
Expert (combining everything from Rogue and Adventurer: Rogue, Thief, Scout, Tracker, Con-man, etc.)

My main problem with moving forward, though, is that I want to use Fudge mechanics as the core (just my preference). Fudge is OGL. WRM and RAG are CC. SWN is neither of those (free as in beer, not free as in speech). Kinda hard to mix material from all 3, when they're licensed in completely different ways.

Actually, in my own notes, I added a 5th "Attribute"/Profession:

Warrior
Adept
Genius
Expert
Socialite (all social skills: Etiquette, Diplomacy, Negotiation, Con-Artist/Social-Engineering, etc.)

So, non-social thieves (cat burglars, pick pockets, etc.) are "Experts", but con-artists are a negative version of a "Socialite".

I also think I'm going to go forward with non-Fudgey mechanic so that I can avoid the OGL vs CC problem. But it wont be the exploding d6's of WRM/RAG. It's based on the old FASERIP chart, but not exactly (it evolved out of something I was going to do with Fudge, but sort of became its own thing).

Interesting ideas, johnkzin. Why don't you join us at the RPG Table Talk forums (http://www.rpgtabletalk.com) to discuss this further?

Still flipping through Stars without Number and the main thing that keeps popping into my head is that it is really bothering me that this isn't OGL. Why isn't it OGL?
My recent post Happy Birthday Mom

That's actually what I asked myself while flipping through it. Either it's an oversight in the PDF version or the author tries to take his chances with WotC's lawyers.

Thanks for giving the game a look, Stargazer. I always appreciate people taking the time to give SWN a few words.

The reason it's not OGL is twofold, really. Regarding the first, you only get one chance to do OGL correctly; there's no takebacks. I prefer not to make irrevocable decisions like that until I completely understand what I'm doing and know what it will mean for my future business plans. With regards to the second, I don't think SWN actually requires anything from WotC. It uses none of D&D's IP- no races, no classes, no magic, no monsters, no saving throw names, and mentions no WotC trademarks. Skills work completely differently from those of any edition of D&D and combat uses a target-20 system not found in D&D. The underlying framework was certainly inspired by D&D and the end result is mechanically compatible with many retro-clone efforts, but I'm confident that the game itself stands on its own foundation.

I just ordered the hardcover print on demand of this book… I just love it so much!