Re: FT III, BIg ships and such.

On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Alex Williams wrote:

> Gee, I must have the most /un/popular opinion around here; so much so
> I dread exposing it.

	No need for dread my friend.  Don't be afraid about making your
voice 
heard.

> I'd /like/ to see FTIII be a complete rewrite; so complete a rewrite
> that they go from the d6-intensive current system to FMA-style
> multi-die-style adjudication.  That would make it /much/ easier, in my
> eyes, to interface DSII and SGII.  In fact, that leads to a future
> publication, if/when GZG feels it necessary or useful, where the
> entire GZG wargame line comes out in one nicely bound book containing
> FTIII, DSIII and SGIII, maybe with even an RPG system stuck in there
> using the same FMA mechanics (gee, wouldn't it be nice if those were
> the rules I'm working on).
	
	I don't know.  The primary reason why I don't play the FMA games

very often is the fact that they are very difficult to organize and 
play.  One of primary selling points of FT is that it's any easy system 
to play and learn.  I'm not saying that DSII and SGII are not good
games, 
they are.  However, I have an easier time teaching the FT rules than 
teaching any of the FMA rules. Changing the entire system to corresponde

to the FMA system isn't necessary.  In fact we might even lose some 
potential players if we do this.

> Given the unpopularity of changing anything but the smallest fragment
> of FT amongst this group, I have to sit back and wonder how its
> expected for GZG to stay afloat.  If you folks were in charge, there'd
> be neither the excellent DSII nor SGII rules which are far and away
> superior to their predecessor.  GZG would have much less money than
> the already meager sum that they have at hand now.  A company has to
> sell new product to stay a company, and it cannot survive on just a
> handfull of suppliments and a small miniatures line, even with
> requirements as modest as GZG, not forever.  Jon and Mike have
> /never/, in my eyes, shown a mere hint of the GW mentality.  Any
> updates and new versions they produce, they do so because they feel
> its necessary, not just to gouge the playing public out of a few more
> lousy bucks.

	There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  As
far 
as I know, FT doesn't need fixing.  Sure the Kra'Vakk points system need

a little work and the Sa'Vasku need a points system.  (As for beam 
weapons, I'm quite comfortable with them.  I don't know what everyone's
problem 
is.)  As long as you have a good game system there will be demand for
it.  The 
free market will take care of the rest.  Sure, from time to time you may

want to reprint the rules with snazy new graphics and new 
weapons/systems, ships, and scenarios, but changing the whole system?  
That's a recicpe for disaster that could hurt GZG (and as a supporter of

"filthy" capitalism, I'd hate to see a company I like get hurt).
	In short:  Change isn't always good.  (Despite what the overly 
optimistic will say.)  This is not a case of "evolve of die" because 
there is no need for FT to eveolve.   I like FT as is.	There are
certain 
points where the rules can be corrected or clarified, but that can be
fixed 
with either another supplement or a reprint of the original rules.    

> I think its vaguely insulting that most of the 
>replies were implicitive of just such a mindset and hope to my depths 
>that I'm simply reading more vehemance into them than is actually
present.

	What's wrong with vehemance?  This is something we happen to 
love.  To paraphrase Berry Goldwater "Extremism in the defense of Full 
Thrust is no vice."

> So, my unpopular view; I'll go crawl back under my stone, now.

	Don't go under there, it's dark.

Later,
Mark A. Siefert