> So, here's a quick poll:
Hmmm, I'd say somewhat. We (meaning three) have modified it a little; changed
a few of the Powers That Be a little, added a few minor groups, whatnot.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it after I was completely (somewhat) versed with game rules.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Ugh! No. At least not something from a copyrighted genre like B5 or Star Drek:
Deep Space 90210. Actually, I have thought up a very small skeleton of a
background that would reflect FT's movement rules. (They work more like you're
sailing through water, rather than flying through space.) My thinking was a
19th century genre with outer space being discovered to be a fluid of ether.
Have most of the stuff happening around the Solar System with maybe some
ooutposts at Alpha Centauri and whatnot; maybe some H.G. Wells or early
Heinlein aliens on some of the worlds to make it exotic. However, I mentioned
the idea to a friend and he said there was actually a role playing game that
was similar to this. Any notion as to what it was?
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Hmmmm, possibly. But only as a detached work that one can voluntarily buy;
some people aren't interested in the FT background. My preference for a
background suppliment would be an expanded historical timeline; stats on
various powers, types of ships used, current economic level, who's friends,
who's enemies, etc. However, I would like it set at a static "present."
I
like my BattleTech set in 3020s (or there abouts), not the Clan fighting
3057. Besides, that way each FT gaming group can evolve their universe in
their own way.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
No.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
Fairly loose. Mind you, I am a big proponent of vectored movement, but hard
core science in science fiction is sometimes tedious, and sometimes completely
wrong regardless of how well thought out. (I imagine Arthur
C.
Clarke really thought we'd have orbiting populated satellites by now when he
wrote 2001.) Besides, sometimes people do want the "Tetrion Iamibic Pentameter
Discombobulator" ray gun. Sounds like a lot of gibberish, but hey, it works
great against them nasty invading Winnebagos.....
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
Manned ships. I once read a very serious paper on why machines would explore
space rather than men. A well thought out arguement basically stating that
machines (read AIs) are more suited for the cold vacuum of space, could handle
the jounrey better, acquire more knowledge, etc. He made a strong arguement,
and I think he was 100% wrong. Humans have the drive. We went to the moon 28
years ago, as of tomorrow. Didn't need to; we had sent satellites, rockets,
gizmos, whatever. But sending a remote surveyer will never be enough for
humankind. We will conquer this final frontier, and
although there may be some smart machines to help us, we will be there. Call
it human arrogance. Same thing for space warfare.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Nah, it is entertaining sometimes. Think of this as place for Space Philosophy
101.
> At 11:44 PM 7/18/97 +0000, Alfredo wrote:
I disagree. I don't think it ever degenerated to that point. I've been in
threads (briefly) that got that far and this wasn't one of them. I've gotten a
lot out of all the messages, including those I didn't agree with.
Funny enough, there is one thing I REALLY got out of this thread and from the
people who didn't participate in this thread: there isn't really that much
interest in the FT universe as a background!
I proposed an AI creation "background" for the universe and most people didn't
even bother commenting on it. Half of those that did disagreed with some parts
and agreed with the rest.
The point is, very few list members even bothered with it. The background just
seems to be an excuse for a game. Personally, I find this refreshing. I'm
tired of buying games to find that half of it is the SF novel the designer
could never get published by a book company.
So, here's a quick poll:
1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really interested in
what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a battle and
nothing more?
2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star Wars,
B5, homegrown)?
4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more detailed
timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a typical sized
rulebook would you be willing to give up to the background?
5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science background
taking into effect things like AI development, genetic engineering,
relativity, etc." or ""Star Wars was accurate enough for
me."
7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts and
fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or men
versus bugs that interest me."
8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
In a message dated 97-07-19 13:02:54 EDT, you write:
<<SNIP for brevity>>
<So, here's a quick poll:
<1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really interested in
<what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a battle and
<nothing more?
I for one do care about the FT "official" background and find it very
interesting. I used the FT background when I proposed some of the scenario
ideas that were used at last year's GenCon and have carried over to the
scenarios to be played this year.
<2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Read it and re-read it looking with an eye towards expanding on it.
<3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star Wars,
B5, homegrown)?
<4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more detailed
<timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a typical
<sized rulebook would you be willing to give up to the background?
I would like to see fleet books and campaign materials. Doesn't have to be a
requirement for playing the game, just offering one setting for play.
<5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Yes
<6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
<background taking into effect things like AI development, genetic
<engineering, relativity, etc." or ""Star Wars was accurate enough for
me."
Accurate, though I still like space opera elements (the FT "reactionless"
engines and such). Middle ground I guess but leaning more towards the accurate
side.
<7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts and
<fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or men
<versus bugs that interest me."
People in the ships. I haven't really commented yet, but some of the posts
I've seen from a few have scared a soldier like myself. The willingness to
"sanitize" warfare and then equiping these sentient AI's with high firepower
and not a lick of emotion or conscience bothers me. It would seem to lead to
making war too easy ("Hey, they just machines.") and lead to rapid escalation
of hostilities. Also, emotionless AI's sacrificing manned ships because (for
example) they provide a better tactical/survivability advantage, no
matter how small, by drawing fire or otherwise sacrificed. Sorry, better get
rid of the soapbox. Wrong place to put this, especially
with it being so brief. I'll try to go more in-depth later.
<8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Ah, the science posts aren't that bad. Just need to have less emotion in some.
hehe, I had the games (DS2, FT) 6 months b4 I read the bacKgrounds.
Mark
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
I got the games (SGII, DSII) mainly for the good game mechanics, not the
background. Personally I don't prefer any particular background, besides, most
of the games out there have pretty ordinary stuff, with very little real
creativity. On top of all that, I've got a mixture of cheap GW
plastics, MicroArmor, Renegade Legion, and Silent Death (good-looking
fighter designs). I group them by function rather than background.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
no, I usually don't use any background, although I might want to develop a
really *creative* one myself.:)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Seriously though, I think any "enhancements" to the background should be done
separately (in a fiction anthology?) rather than mixed in with the
rules/supplements. We already have GW which sacrifices rules for fluff
(and increasingly bad fluff too).
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
If any background is going to be included, then an accurate one would be more
desirable. There's already way too many technofantasy backgrounds.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
It'll be men versus men regardless of any AI, unless your background is not
set around humans.
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
I like the background, and its creativity. Mainly I think however that it just
is an excuse...
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it, definitely.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
I've been interested in trying a Star Wars one, because of the Micromachine
figures I have and the nifty other stuff available (the plastic AT-STs
from KFC, which a friend has several of, as well as the scale Snowspeeders).
Also, I've been interested in a B5 background, but that's just bias - I
can't get enough of B5.:)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
A couple of pages, much like what has already been in the other books, is fine
by me. It gives the rulebook a little more "flavour"...
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Definitely. Not sure in what form - I tend to agree now (whereas I
didn't initially) that too much fiction in the rule books is just annoying. A
separate booklet, either bundled with it or available separately, would be
good.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
I like where the current FT background is going. Detailed enough to give
ideas, but open enough to allow interpretation - the whole reason you're
doing this poll, isn't it?:)
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
I've been staying out of the AI debate, mainly because I don't give two hoots
about it. It could be men in the ships, it could be highly developed
AIs in the ships, but who cares - it's me that makes the decisions, and
I am definitely not an AI.:)
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
I think people should be able to talk, within reason, about pretty much
anything that could be connected to FT and associated games in this list.
If they stray too far - well, perhaps polite requests to take it to
email or to a newsgroup.
There's my 2 credits worth.;)
---
1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really interested in
what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a battle and
nothing more? Not really, though having some general idea of the "flavor" of
each fleet would be nice.
2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it? I read it (but
with a couple grains of salt:))
3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star Wars,
B5, homegrown)?
First generation Traveller (Trillion Credit Squadron, Fifith Frontier War,
etc)
4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more detailed
timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a typical sized
rulebook would you be willing to give up to the background?
See #1
5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Or maybe fiction that translates into FT well. Transcripts of After
Action Reports, that could be "re-played" in FT.
6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science background
taking into effect things like AI development, genetic engineering,
relativity, etc." or ""Star Wars was accurate enough for
me."
See #3
7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts and
fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or men
versus bugs that interest me."
In the end it is being vs being. I see AIs as making the being's job easier,
not replacing the being.
8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
The science tends to show how well FT holds together (more so than most)
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
Actually I do for SG. SG works at the tactical level. So a good idea of
protagonists motivation is nice. Also it gives the mood for the engagements.
You know, desparate NAC troops fighting against the planetary invasion force
of the Solar Union.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Well, I certainly read the SG and DS background stuff. Liked it too.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star
Nope, GZG did a reasonable job so I'll use it.
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a
Actually yse I would. A little more expansion on the lesser
nations/organisations. OUDF, LLAR and the likes.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Any creative setting would translate well and breed plenty of new ideas
for scenarios/games.
> .
The generic approach has been fine so far. As Jon stated, the background is
provided to give players a framework to play within IF they wish. I do so
wish.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
Less relevant to SG which is man versus man.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a
Perhaps if it continues for much longer it would be more deserving to move the
discussion from the list to a Newsgroup? There are obviously a lot of
insiteful observations made that would better served with a wider audience.
----------
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
As backgrounds go it is fairly interesting, reminds me a little of GDWs
'2300AD' future history which I quite enjoyed. As many of the FT players I
game with use GZG miniatures and are familliar with the background we use it
as the basis for scenarios and campaigns.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Read it.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Star Trek (own development) B5 (Indy's rules)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
I assume the Fleet Book will expand this by nature of its content. If the
background info enhances playing of FT then it can have as many pages as it
likes.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Why not, if its good SF don't care what the background is, please no
'Treecats'.........
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
As this is a game about 'Energy weapons', Starships and FTL Drives I'm quite
happy with PSB. However I do follow the posts on 'Real Science' with interest
and have incorporated some ideas into my games as purely optional rules.
Personally, I think if we ever get 'Out There' and heaven forbid fight 'Out
There', it will be with vehicles and with weapons quite unlike what we are
extrapolating now. To me thats the best thing about FT its generic, its
systems and mechanics can be applied to any number of backgrounds and
philosophies.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
I tend to look at the future warfare represented by FT to be similar to that
of 20th century naval warfare but in the medium of Outer Space (now theres a
lovely old term).So I tend to visualise my fighters and ships as being crewed
by Humans or BEMs, Yes I Know ship and fighter casualties are very high but I
like to think that escape systems and SAR capabilities have also advanced, so
although a ship may be totalled their is a reasonably good chance that many of
the crew got away and were either rescued or captured.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Love the posts, if I don't like them, I can always delete them.
1) I've never been one to really invest emotionally in any one side in a
gaming universe. 2) I've read the FT background, I found it sufficient. 3) I
rarely specify a background, just setting up generic missions like planetary
assault, space station assault, engage and destroy. 4) I wouldn't want to see
background expand anywhere beyond 50% of a book. 5) Only if it stands on its
own merits as good fiction. 6) I'm afraid I want a playable game more than an
accurate prediction of the future.
7) I like to control the battle. If the AI/men/bug nature doesn't
affect play, I don't care. 8) At a certain point, I lost interest in the AI
thread. This is always
compounded by threads drifting in many directions and not changing the topic.
The poll;
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
Back gound is what you make of it, depending on which you want to use to
justify why your fighting in the first place. The more interesting the
background the easier it is to get "into" your part as a commander. Your
fiighting for a reason, or a cause, the background provides these motivations
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I tend to read the background for FT, it's interesting. But sicne I havn't
played much, I have been rather flaky in my choice of back grounds. Mostly
pertaining to which minitures I have access to.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
At present I've been using some modified FT/Star Trek rules due to
having a lot of the micro machine minitures for the series. But I'm flexiable.
Honor Harrington, Space;1889, and others have come to mind and I may even plan
a few games in my friends and my SF story background.
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Sure, but in defrence to those who just use the rules, (My votes for keeping
them very generic) I'd limiit it to a few pages at most.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
As above, but not part of the rules book.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
This one would depend on the individual, me I played "Mayday" when it first
came out and grew to hate vectored movement. But I've since looked for a
system to simulate it without all the bulk. I found FT
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
Regarding 6 and above, (You have to to answer the question:)
Background is what the individual players want. If I'm a cyborg/AI
raace out to destroy the "Livers" the background would probably dictate that
not only did my opponets use little automation, they may fear it with an
almost religious zeal.. How that would affect the game wouuld be up to how we
chose to interpret it.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Ahh, but PSB will always be with us, till someone figures out how to actually
make it work
Randy
why don't you just put all the background stuff in a senerio book, cal it the
third solar war book or the first xeno war or something, fill it with
"offical" ship designs for major powers and lots of premade balanced serienos,
perhaps a campign or two, toss in a little bit of fiction, and everybodies
happy
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
While the game is the most important to me, yes the background is important.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Yep, and loved it.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Nope, though B5 will probably be used very soon.
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Yes, and I'd be willing to give up about 6-10 pages. The background adds
flavour and is important.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Oh, yeah.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
If possible a mix. Some firm basis in science, but a good romantic sort of
feel to the battles.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts
Guys, the whole AI thing to me bores me. I just can't get used to the idea of
cheering HQ771M12 on rather the Han Solo. The idea just dosen't have the same
effect.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Ahhhh, I'm sorry but I have to agree.
> Allan Goodall: agoodall@sympatico.ca
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
Yep. I love the background. It always gives you somewhere to start. We play
mostly with the background, but with a few little changes here and there to
make things a little more personal.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I've read it several times over and I loved it.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Not yet. But give us a little time....
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
I would love to see more on the "official" background as it is a really good
universe. I'm willing to give a little of the rules space over to the
"officia'" timeline. I think anywhere up to 10 pages (not like the GW thing
of 1/2 of the book).
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
You bet.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
I want to see alot of it with a firm basis in science (which is why I love B5)
but the occasional PSB and ridiculous tech factor I'm fine with. After all,
who can say what will be tech in the next 500 years?
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts
I like the WWII feel to the universe like there is now. Sure space battles of
the future probably won't be like that, but then like it says in the opening
blurb for SGII, future battlefields will probably only have a few drones
flying over the land shooting at each other. Not very exciting. Leave the AI
stuff out. It bores me. I like the Human factor in my games.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Sounds good to me. And I am a scientist.
> At 10:11 PM 7/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
The universe, and the roleplaying game, is _Space: 1889_ by the now
defunct GDW. It assumes that the ether really exists and that Edison created
an "Aether Propeller". Mars is very similar to Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom,
only with British colonialism and lots of European and Martian political
intrigue. The games presumed something called "liftwood," a naturally growing
plant that repelled a planet's electromagnetic field. This allows the
Europeans to produce steam driven gunboats and launch "ether flyers"
(spaceships) while the Martians fly kites (liftwood based sailing ships) and
screw galleys (galley slaves cranking big propellers).
The first product out for the universe was _Sky Galleons of Mars_ and
was probably the best of the series. It let you fight battles between aerial
gunboats, screw galleys, and kites. It included plastic miniatures and thick
paper stock hex sheets. I've been working on converting my figures for use on
a miniatures with actual terrain. The game system is actually quite fast
paced. I don't know if the ship creation rules are broken or if they create
fairly well balanced ships. The figures aren't too terribly detailed (not
exactly the "model quality miniatures" advertised on the box) but I hear a
third party is still creating lead miniatures.
The roleplaying game had some good background material but an overly
simplistic system. It didn't sell very well, but that was probably because it
was a hardback book with lots of gratuitous colour plates. We've been
playing _Space: 1889_ (actually set in 1899) for about 6 or 7 years now
but it's interesting to note that we're running it in GURPS. The dozen or so
supplements that came out for the game were fairly good, though.
_Soldier's Companion_ is a set of miniatures rules for colonial ground
combat. If you strip out the SF stuff, you've got a pretty interesting set of
colonial rules. A lot of people use it as a historical game.
The last thing released for the game was _Ironclads and Ether Flyers_, a
set of miniatures rules for large naval ships. It's essentially the same
system as Sky Galleons, but it's got some problems. Like many GDW games, it
looks like it wasn't properly playtested. In spite of the name, there isn't
much in the way of Ether Flyer combat. You can fight with Ether Flyers within
an atmosphere, but there are no rules for space combat.
So, if you're looking at creating a set of Ether Flyer combat rules for deep
space, there is still plenty of room for this kind of game. I know there are a
couple of us on the mailing list that were thinking of coming up with a FT
conversion for Sky Galleons but an Ether Flyer variant for deep space combat
would be cool. Of course, there are no figures available for it...
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
I'm fairly interested, but mainly it's an excuse.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
All of the above, and a couple of other "genre" backgrounds too
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
The present level of detail is fine- As is the proportion of the
rulebooks devoted to it. I would be interested to see it extend a bit further
into the future.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
NOT in a rulebook! I would probably buy the first one though.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
My phlogiston motors interact with the aether in a manner perfectly modelled
by FT2 movement. Personally, I don't want to use vector movement.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts
I don't have any problem with AI's, humans or greenskins- there are
plenty of ways to explain high losses in the little guys, and "AIs can be
people too".
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
I enjoy them, as long as they remain friendly- If I'm not interested, I
can delete unread (I know some people have already paid to download, so I
suppose it's good manners to keep a sense of proportion.) As someone else
said, I'd rather get a bunch of tangential posts than none.
cheers
> Allan wrote:
> So, here's a quick poll:
I don't really care, no - I read is as fiction, but I don't use it in
the games.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it, and then I ignored it:)
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
My ships are painted and divided into rather arbitrary fleets, most
of which are named after various empires in a long-ceased Starfire
campaign; but the battles I fight are generally stand-alone.
Of course, once I get the B5 models I'll use that background too:)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
If the background is in a non-rules supplement, it's OK - for example,
if the Book of Fleets is published, it'd make good sense to include background
sections on the different major powers.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
As long as I don't have to buy it to get the rules, yes:)
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
<chuckle> An accurate background is very fine - as long as the
background is written to fit the games mechanics, instead of the other way
round. When you write the rules to fit the background, you lose at least some
of
the adaptability - not a thing I would want FT to suffer.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
Does it matter for the games-mechanics? If not, why bother? Fighters are
fighters anyway:)
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
<shrug> I just delete the posts I'm not interested in...
> At 01:00 PM 7/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
Well, I'm not living it or anything. I do think it's one of the better
backgrounds though. I'll certainly be buying the
getting-towards-nessie-status fleet book.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it..
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Um, not as yet, no. I might try B5 but it strikes me (from the series) the
battles will be a bit dull, as it appears there are very few races on a
technological par with each other.
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Not in the rulebook. If they are going to put that much detail in it deserves
a book of it's own.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
No. I have yet to see a 'game connected' book / short story collection I
would line a budgie cage with, let alone read.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
Um, how exactly do we tell how 'accurate' a far future background is? Anything
in this is all PSB. Relativity is all very well, but it is possible that at
some point it'll go the same way as the earth is flat theory. Whose
predictions are better than others?
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts
Quite so. I doubt it will matter much either way. Besides if AI's have been
around for a while they might be accepted as equal of humans, In essence, it
matters not.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
well there is that to a degree. The point at which I diverge from the 'hard
science' crowds is when it stops being FUN. Whether the fighters are piloted
by AI's or people doesn't matter to the gods of FUN. If you are using a vector
movement system that is superaccurate but takes 20 minutes to move a ship
means the gods of FUN will look harshly upon you and your fellow players will
drift away to watch Teletubbies. The gods if FUN also frown on players who
play Kra'Vak because they are better but smile on players who play Sa'Vasku as
their unpredictability makes them FUN.
At the end of the day, I think people should remember this is, i essence, a
form of entertainment. That which makes it less entertaining is surplus.
TTFN
Jon
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
Yes, I care. Maybe its because I came into the hobby as a roleplayer, but I
like to empathise with whoever I'm playing.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Read it.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Occaisionally. The advantage of the official background is that it is a
"common language" between people who don't normally game together.
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Given that not everyone likes the background, I think the current proportions
are probably okay. Otherwise go for books (such as the Fleet Book) completely
devoted to the background. Then you really find out how popular it is.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Yes, though I tend to have a pretty low opinion of game-derived fiction.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
Depends on my mood. I'm not sure a dead-accurate system would be
terribly interesting as a game.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts
I don't think large-scale use of AI is in the spirit of GZG's universe,
or most of the military and game SF it is inspired by. The high loss rates can
be explained away as: putting inappropriate ships in the line of battle, the
excessive bloodthirstiness of players vs. real commanders and, particularly
for fighters, "killed" ships sometimes just being
mission-killed rather than vapourised.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
I don't mind them as long as they stay within reasonable bounds.
> >1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
I quite like the FT background. Perhaps it has more appeal to us Europeans
than to the Americans. Considering the fact that America is really just part
of the NAC. In the main it reminds me somewhat of the 2300AD roleplaying game.
Now that is a background crying out to be use by GZG players.
> >2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it. Always read the background, it gives the flavour of the game. Or at
least gives you more idea what the designers intended for it.
> >3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Babylon5.
> >4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Yes I would like to see it enhanced. I think there could maybe have been a few
more pages of background detail on the individual powers in the rule book.
Real detail should maybe be kept for the Fleet book.
> >5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Indifferent. A good campaign book would be good. Not really straight fiction
though.
> >6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
Kepp it simple. Thats the jheart of the game system. If you want detail most
people here are capable of creating their own. I don't want to be playing SFB
or even dealing with Star Trek like PSB. Heres an example of what I mean.
Comparing Star Trek to B5. Complexity against simplicity (at least in my
view).
Star Trek: Refocus the kinetic energy warping field to a 0.779 frequency and
engage.
B5: Fire!
> >7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
I have to say AI's don't hold that much interest for me. Morale rules go out
the window. Although there are some interesting possibilities for AI's
intrpreting orders in the wrong way.
> >8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a
As long as its interesting, and somewhat entertaining I don't mind.
In message <199707191700.NAA22471@smtp2.sympatico.ca>
> Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The people I play FT with do use it - our fleets are from the
background (NSL and ESU _really_ hate each other :) ), and we
base fleet design around what's suggested in the background.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Read it.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Nope. Currently, I only use FT for wargaming. I've got a couple of SF RPG
campaigns in mind, that could use a spacecraft combat system, in which case
I'd use a (very) hacked version of FT, since FT wouldn't work very well with
any background I came up with.
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Nope.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Nope.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
I'd want an accurate background, but then I'd most probably disagree with it
(in fact, I mostly disagree with what there is already), so I'd change it.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
What I'd like to see is the technology background, and then play with the
logical progression from that. If there's good reasons why there are no AIs,
then we should have men in fighters. Both backgrounds can make for interesting
games.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
I like science posts. One of the things I *don't* like about FT is that the
science is too indistinct. I'd rather it was fleshed out more (especially for
things like scale). I'd rather have something I disagree with, then nothing at
all.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
Out of curiousity interest, no more.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Read it.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
All of the above. (8-)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Depends... is it a "Fleet Supplement" or is it filled with goodies?
Personally, I'd rather see a backgorunds book filled with rule options to make
FT fit better into various stereotypical universes.
(i.e.
an ANIME type Universe, a STAR TREK type Universe, etc.)
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Depends on who's writing it. Good Sci-fi is always worth reading. (8-)
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
Depends on the feel you want. Since FT is meant to be generic, there's only so
far you can go.
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
Depends if you can justify it in terms of the game universe i.e. the Bolo
universe vs. Star Trek vs Foundation. (Bolos, competent AI was developed. Star
Trek, they don't have the technology. Foundation, the Galactic Empire had the
technology, but there was some sort of societal injunction. See Robots and
Empire, Asimov, for details.)
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
But what about us math majors who need food? (8-)
J.
> ----------
Actually, Evan Powle made the observation that SG/DS are the perfect
vehicles for the Traveller 2300 players to conduct larger scale combat!? Well
here the the Kafer Wars!
Trying something new with formatting, If it does not turn out, I apologize in
advance and will repost.
In a message dated 97-07-19 13:02:54 EDT, you write:
<< 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really interested in
what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a battle and
nothing more? Yes. I am interested
2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it? I read it.
3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star Wars,
B5, homegrown)? Mostly getting a feel for the mechanics, stategy of the game,
but will be starting a B5 variation.
4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more detailed
timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a typical sized
rulebook would you be willing to give up to the background? Yes, I would like
more background. I might not use it as gospel, but probably would give me
ideas for my own battles. valen10@flash.net (Christopher Pratt) had ideas that
interested me, and would be happy with
this. Make the supplements about 40-50 pages (like FT rulebook) and
costing about the same ($15).
5) Would you like to see some FT fiction? Yes, but not very much in the
supplements. Books would be better.
6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science background
taking into effect things like AI development, genetic engineering,
relativity, etc." or ""Star Wars was accurate enough for
me."
Somewhere in the middle. Science in games should be consistent with known
principles, but should allow for new discoveries that add to this (things
like: you can't travel faster than light speed in normal space, but hyperspace
gives you an apparent velocity many times greater than light, or accelerating
at 500 g will turn you into 'chunky salsa', except if you use inertial
dampeners).
7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts and
fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or men
versus bugs that interest me." In the main don't bother with AI, except in
special cases that the story or scenerio is built around it.
8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!" Keep
posting them as long as they don't get to far away from the game or game
mechanics.
> [quoted text omitted]
Chan 'Gimme more, gimme more!' Faunce
In a message dated 97-07-19 13:02:54 EDT, you write:
<< 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really interested in
what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a battle and
nothing more?
It is fun and interesting. My interest in Politics makes this a good read.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it after studying the rules.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
For the games I just kind of fake it. (sorry)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
Not in the rule book, as a supliment & a short story book - YES. I would
pay money for that! (Paying money is the only real endorsement that counts!)
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Yes
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
I hope this doesn't sound too contradictory but I would like a hard science
background that doesn't get into too much detail. ( Let everyone fill in their
own details, we can't seem to agree on them anyway!)
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
I want to see guy in the vehicles - by the time you get true AI's (the
SF version) they will be both citizens and just as valuable as biologic people
anyway.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a
No, if you don't have the science posts you run the risk of drifting into the
situation where you have "wizards" and "magic wands" but call them "AI's" and
"computers". After all it is TV that tells us "your average laptop computer is
capable of targeting a man in Russia from the USA with millimeter precision."
( having no sensors or Mark I eyeball input only, on top of that!!!!!!!) Bah
Humbug on Bad(TV) Science thinking!
> >
> > to be use by GZG players.
Well one of the things I had been hoping to do was to create a com bined arms
campaign using all the various rules sets for either
2300AD or/and Renegade legion rules. Particularly 2300AD. When this
happens is a very good question. If anyone out there has any work on these
particular areas I'd be very interested in hearing about it.
In a message dated 97-07-21 16:39:10 EDT, you write:
<< why don't you just put all the background stuff in a senerio book, call it
the third solar war book or the first xeno war or something, fill it with
"offical" ship designs for major powers and lots of premade balanced serienos,
perhaps a campign or two, toss in a little bit of fiction, and everybody dies
happy
> [quoted text omitted]
I agree with Chris!!
> Christopher Pratt wrote: