Background Irrelevancy and Poll

My turn in the apple barrel...

1) I don't particularly _like_ the FT background -- that is, it
postulates a future history that I hope would not happen if we did develop FTL
travel (but I wouldn't
bet on it) -- but I do find certain aspects of it interesting (as
demonstrated by my
recent posts about OU/small power starships). I'd like to know more of
what happened after first contact with the Sa'Vasku, and the continuing
struggle with the Kra'Vak.

2) Yes, I read them. FT is very good in terms of being a generic game, but
certain rules do have a basis in Jon's own universe, and it is useful to know
this when thinking about how to apply them.

3) I use other backgrounds. I first played FT in the SFSFW's Star Trek demo
game (which wasn't the best _simulation_ of ST combat, but was a LOT of
fun!),
worked on some B5 stuff, and have developed rules for Battlestar Galactica and
Jerry Pournelle's Co-Dominium/Empire of Man universe. My sons have their
own
FT universe, and Finagle help anyone who finds themselves _there_... <g>

4) I don't particularly want to see the current timeline expanded; IMO, it's
adequate as it is. At least, in terms of the major powers -- no
battle-by-battle
history of the Solar Wars, for instance -- but some further development
of the smaller powers would be interesting (Just what does the OU, etc. do
while the big guys are slugging it out?). As I said above, I would like to see
the timeline
_extended_ to give some details of what happened next.
I would prefer all such stuff to be in specialised supplements (Fleet books,
etc.), rather than take up large amounts of space in generalised expansions.
Two pages per MT-style rulebook would be adequate, or more (say, 4) in
an
FT-universe publication.

5) I'm ambivalent about FT fiction. I'd probably look at it and then decide if
I
wanted it on an individual story/book basis. I could happily do without
it, though.

6) "Accuracy" -- well, to some extent, you pays your money and takes
your choice. Account for these things if you must, but ignoring AI, genetic
engineering, etc. is equally valid because a) we don't know how, or even IF
such things would work, and b) even if they do work, there's no guarantee that
they'll be used; other consideration like politics, religion and the like may
get in the way (remember Dune and the Orange Catholic Bible? There goes the
AIs...)

7) Definitely "men" vs "men". AIs are interesting, and may even be superior in
some applications, but the excitement of space travel is getting out there and
doing it yourself.

8) Isn't that sort of thing ["science posts"] what this list is for? FT's
great strength is that one can use it as a basis for so many different types
of game, so talking about science is one way of defining what players might do
to jazz up the game system to suit themselves. Let's keep the discussion
friendly, by all means, but talking about real or imagined science is a good
way to spark new ideas to use on the game table.

Phil