> At 07:01 1/05/02 +0100, Adam wrote:
Quite possibly, Roddenberry always seemed to be prepared to burn everything
down to start again. ST:TNG was to have NO Klingons or Romulans or any aliens
from ST:TOS. It was only the clever introduction of Worf ( a guest spot for a
few episodes that expanded to one of the better characters) that saved the
Klingon Empire and the other original Star Trek races from Roddenberry's
desire to start a fresh;)
Cheers
> On 5/2/02 7:38 AM, "Derek Fulton" <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Quite possibly, Roddenberry always seemed to be prepared to burn
that
> saved the Klingon Empire and the other original Star Trek races from
Actually, this reminds me that SJG (in association with ADB) is coming out
with GURPS: Prime Directive in about 2-4 months.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/primedirective/
I'm looking forward to it.
> At 07:01 1/05/02 +0100, Adam wrote:
> On 5/2/02 7:38 AM, "Derek Fulton" <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
I don't think that Gene was so fascinated with burning things down as with
moving on to something new. The point of replacing the TOS Klingons and
Romulans with the Ferengi (as originally described, rather than as the comedy
relief they became) and whoever else might
have been created -- the Cardassians, for instance -- was that TNG was
75-100 years later than TOS, and the Federation was that much bigger;
starships were reaching out further into the galaxy, and so Roddenberry wanted
new and different aliens for the good guys to deal with. They'd
_done_ the Kingons and Romulans and he didn't want to re-hash old
material (nobody mention the recycled plots, okay? Consider the point taken).
At least one early description of the series actually had the
Klingon Empire as a self-governing sub-state within the Federation!
I've never before heard of the idea of ST Andromeda, but it fits in with
Roddenberry's philosophy as expressed in his shows. After all,
Andromeda is basically a space-going version of the other "Dylan
Hunt" series -- Genesis II/Planet Earth. He might also have approved of
the concept (rather than the execution) of Voyager.
> Schoon wrote:
> I'm looking forward to it.
I'm dubious, though less so than I was before I looked at the website. PD was
pretty militaristic, but the GURPS version seems less so (and I was amused to
see a Prime Team described as a group of
"command-scientist-diplomats" -- diplomacy was _not_ a major focus of
PD in my experience). The main worry in my mind is whether the rules will
insist on using the horrible SFU timeline, which is probably the worst thing
about that universe.
And I'll be interested to see whether (and _how_) they tackle the
problem of TOS vs TMP/TNG et seq. Klingons... <g>
Phil
----
"We gotta get out into Space / If it's the last thing we ever do!"
-- Return to the Forbidden Planet
(After all the recient flame wars...I will keep certain
thoughts/comments to
myself...)
I think I can safely say I am not in favor of SJG doing anything involving the
ADB...
I do find I have a certain fondness for the classic startrek. Go get'em Kirk!
JMHO (Just My Humble Opinion)
Donald Hosford
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> On 5/2/02 7:38 AM, "Derek Fulton" <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/02 12:30 AM, "Donald Hosford" <Hosford.Donald@acd.net> wrote:
> I think I can safely say I am not in favor of SJG doing anything
Well, they are and they aren't. Though "Powered by GURPS" all the actual work
is being done by ADB. As I'm fond of the work they've done on Star Trek
story-wise, though I don't particularly care for SFB's complexity, I'm
happy to get the background without the chaff.
> At 05:35 2/05/02 +0100, Phillip wrote:
"We come in peace, shoot to kill"
Cheers
Does that mean that the ADB will be the publisher?
I did notice the "published by..." on SJG page.
That was surprizing, I had thought that GURPS is SJG's product, that they
would be doing the publishing...
Ah well. So it goes.
(Every time I think I understand something, something compleatly new comes
along and blows all previous understanding out the window...)
Donald Hosford
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> On 5/3/02 12:30 AM, "Donald Hosford" <Hosford.Donald@acd.net> wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]