Re: Conversion reasons for FT...

On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:31:58 +0100 (MET), you wrote:
>
>However, a campaign structure doesn't really need specific mass/volume 
>ratios and crew sizes. How big is one Hull Space in Starfire? How many 
>people are there in a Personnel Point? Neither is really specified, 
>although you can determine rough sizes for at least pps. Once again, 
>leave enough for many different backgrounds - don't fix the campaign 
>system to one single background. It is quite easily done,
unfortunately.
>
The game as it stands at the moment has  an "open" structure which has
allowed players to customize it to their bent. 

Those who are advocating a more complicated legalistic (dare I say
pharisaic?) approach  seem to feel uncomfortable with a system which
does not define the game down to the last rivet. That's OK. really.
REALLY.

My argument is that there is, without doubt, a large number of folks
who want to keep it simple and not have to point to the rulebook and
say a la Judge Dredd "THIS IS THE LAW".  

It's just not required. Simply agree on the options to be used before
you  play the game. If players can't do that they're not in it for fun
or in a wargames club, they're in a kindergarten. 
 
The open nature of the system and the approach taken by GZG in More
Thrust in proferring "bug" fixes (e.g. C batteries and fighter
movement), optional rules and new races gives players the *choice* of
both. Both camps can be happy.
But I'd hate to see GZG  actually *codify* an additional layer of
complexity. Once that's done there's no going back.
--
Bob Blanchett
bobblanchett@iname.com
----------------------