There's been a bit said about "FTIII" and changes to the game.
FT, IMHO has been successful because, it hasn't tried to bind it's players to
particular system or a particular universe.
Jon made it plain in his comments in FT that he didn't want to do that and he
created a simple common framework through which the players could complicate
as much as they wished through house and player written rules. look at the web
pages and see what folks have done!
Speaking as former SFB player, I praised the lord when this game came out. The
"toad syndrome" that ASL, SFB, GW and most big RPG's have followed which
turned players into consumers, more supplements, more releases and errata
which becomes addenda which becomes the fifth version of the rules.
Do we want to go this way with Full Thrust?
NO! I Say! (waits for applause, not a sausage)
Jon indicated his distaste for this manipulative marketing approach in the
editorial content of the rules and has, through considered quality releases in
More Thrust and DS II given the players a choice of what *they* might like to
consider, even letting Jim Webster plug his rules as well!
His co-operative approach in writing the rules has transmitted to
players worldwide.
Eric, Adam, Robin, Chad and myself all seem to have been attracted to the game
by it's essential simplicity, where imagimnation, concensus and fun, rather
than rulebooks or a legalistic approach let the players make what they like
out of the game.
Write more supplements by all means, flesh out the universe with Fleet Books,
offer some alternatives for what players see as as I'd ask GZG to consider
with extreme care a massive rewrite of the basic game system because of what
really are rather "anal" concerns about play balance or "unreality".
Trading off play balance against simplicity and what will mean a requirement
for players to learn the game all over again as well as buying more books.
Full Thrust may well break into those who use the original and new rules. This
approach depressed WRG ancients gaming for a long time e.g.. 6th edition
versus 7th v. DBM. Don't let this happen to FT.
Players can "balance" games on a tactical or reality basis for themselves and
have for a long time.
They will modify, include or omit things to suit themselves, their scenario
and their opponents. This is a fun silly game we play and if you start getting
worked up about it or start playing for sheep stations, you need to seek a
psychiatrist's advice.
When my SFB opponents started arguing about "Race Y can't use rule X in
supplement Z" and whether to use it or not I gave it up I'd hate to have to
give away FT.
I'm going to canvas the players in at the Canberra Tournament in January and
see how they feel about this.
Best regards all!
Short and sweet I'd like to chime in with my agreement for not doing a rewrite
of Full Thrust. All the other suggestions I've seen posted eg. new aliens, new
tech, fleet books, and esp. camapaign rules would be much more welcome Mike J.
Murtha The Adventurers Club
since I understand GZG actually reads this group, let me chime in my
support for NOT re-writing full thrust, and re-printing more thrust
instead. he game isn't perfectly even and fair, but the number of rule fixes
needed (imo) wouldn't fill an 8.5X11 sheet of paper. I think anther expansion
would be cool though...
I would have to agree with the growing sentiment on the mailing list. I don't
think a rewrite of FT is necessary and it doesn't appear to be wanted either.
Let's face it, GW has shown that you can overexpand something to death. And
that's just recent memory.
What FT needs is more stuff, more aliens like the S'Vasku(sic), more fleets,
and a few bug fixes. I am very interested to see Jon Tuffley's Babylon 5 space
combat rules, as I hope they'll be close enough to the simplicity of Full
Thrust that they will be usuable with FT. Almost like a Babylon expansion!
Maybe that's what Jon should try to work on, getting liscensing agreements to
write expansions to FT based on Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. (I probably just
stepped in it there!)
Whatever happens, there is no real need for FTIII.
My 2 cents,
In message <961209185205_1388149416@emout01.mail.aol.com>
> MJMurtha@aol.com writes:
new
> aliens, new tech, fleet books, and esp. camapaign rules would be much
Basically I agree with this, and all the other like-minded messages.
I do not, however, see any need for "new tech". Big shopping lists of new
weapons I can live without.
I can see a certain merit in compiling it all into one book. A couple of
official fixes wouldn't hurt, A batteries, Kra'vak.
I somehow doubt that we could all agree on which fix would be best...
> MJMurtha@aol.com wrote:
new
> aliens, new tech, fleet books, and esp. camapaign rules would be much
Hi, I've gotta say...I've seen too many games go the route of rewrites and Nth
editions. I'm tired of it. Lets keep FT as is. After all I'm still new to the
game and I'm not ready for another edition!!!!! Or am I ready to shell out
more of my hard earned money on something I already have. I love FT for its
simplicity and the massive battles you can have in just a short amout of time.
Lets keep it
that way. Please!!!!!!!!
Thanx
I would like to put my 2 cents worth in. There is no reason to change the
basic structure of Full Thrust. I have played many other space battle games in
my 39 years, and this is the most enjoyable game that I have found so far. If
everyone wants a complicated game, then I can suggest several that will please
you and your kind.
I have showed this game to several people that have not seen it before. On
both occasions, it took me about 15 minutes to explain the basic premise, and
about 15-20 minutes to play their first game.
I would prefer that the designers would spend their time on producing new
supplements that deal with new ship configurations, new "historical battles",
alternate settings, and campaign rules.
> BobbyMock wrote:
On
> both occasions, it took me about 15 minutes to explain the basic
Whoa! 15-20 minutes for one game? Even in some small battles that we
have run the game lasted a couple of hours. Curious, but was this to
completion or just a trial run.
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:28:56 -0500 (EST)
...
> Whoa! 15-20 minutes for one game? Even in some small battles that
My first few were more like 20-30 minutes. It didn't take me long to
figure out how to land with the stern of my ship facing the opponents bow at
point blank range. Got that right the first game. And the second...
After I got a bit better about not doing that, games got noticeably longer.
Yes, I'm serious. The First Battle of Grendel, 2137, is a very good intro
game. After the first game, you change it up a little, to experiment with some
advanced rules. That intro scenario could not last more than 20 minutes.
Anyway, the point is that enjoy Full Thrust for what I think it is; a fun,
easy to learn and play, generic space battle game, that can be adapted to any
number of pseudo universes.
> John Medway wrote:
Heh, heh... :)