I've been reading the rules in more detail trying to get a better feel for the game. I like the simplicity. I think about 30% of any table-top game session is just figuring out the rules. A more simple rule-set will make this easier, but then there is more pressure on the GM for content!
I'm interested in testing the combat system. It has shades of the original system, but has cut out a lot of the extra crap that slowed it down. My only concern is that combat might suddenly become deadly. Always a bummer when you accidentally kill off your players. But then I can also see combat becoming meaningless too. True 20 has a very short combat scale... your bruised, your wounded, your dying. That's it. You get hurt by failing "toughness saves" (roll a 20 sided and beat a specific number). So if you get shot, roll a toughness save. If you beat the target number, you shrug it off or perhaps it just nicked you. If you don't, depending on how badly you miss the target number you could end up dead or at least out of combat and wounded. But of course the game isn't all about combat.
The system is extremely generic. New players are going to have to be guided by the GM about what makes sense. I am loathe to draft specific classes. You can do it endlessly, but with no structure the characters may end up a bit odd. But with a little work, I'm sure you can work out great stuff. I kind of like the "no limits" aspect of it. Often a rigid class just serves to restrict the player's creativity. I do not like sticking character concepts in pre-defined roles. But what that does mean is that it is somewhat hard to just roll a character and go. A player is going to have ponder what is possible and navigate the options or let the GM decide (or at least suggest).
Looks like fun though. I'm going to mess around with character generation and sample interactions soon. Have fun y'all!