Prev: RE: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll Next: Re: FT: Missiles and Gas Tanks

Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)

From: Rob Paul <rpaul@w...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 01:47:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)


>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'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
Wars,
>B5, homegrown)? 
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
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?
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
>background taking into effect things like AI development, genetic
>engineering, relativity, etc." or ""Star Wars was accurate enough for
me."
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
and
>fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or
men
>versus bugs that interest me." 

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
Rob Paul

"
Rob Paul
Dept. of Zoology
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
(01865) 271124

rpaul@worf.molbiol.ox.ac.uk

Once again, villainy is rotting meat before the maggots of justice!
"

Prev: RE: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll Next: Re: FT: Missiles and Gas Tanks