Background Irrelevancy and Poll

My turn in the apple barrel...

1) I don't particularly _like_ the FT background -- that is, it
postulates a future
history that I hope would not happen if we did develop FTL travel (but I
wouldn't
bet on it) -- but I do find certain aspects of it interesting (as
demonstrated by my
recent posts about OU/small power starships). I'd like to know more of
what
happened after first contact with the Sa'Vasku, and the continuing
struggle with
the Kra'Vak.

2) Yes, I read them. FT is very good in terms of being a generic game,
but
certain rules do have a basis in Jon's own universe, and it is useful to
know this
when thinking about how to apply them.

3) I use other backgrounds. I first played FT in the SFSFW's Star Trek
demo
game (which wasn't the best _simulation_ of ST combat, but was a LOT of
fun!),
worked on some B5 stuff, and have developed rules for Battlestar
Galactica and
Jerry Pournelle's Co-Dominium/Empire of Man universe. My sons have their
own
FT universe, and Finagle help anyone who finds themselves _there_... <g>

4) I don't particularly want to see the current timeline expanded; IMO,
it's
adequate as it is. At least, in terms of the major powers -- no
battle-by-battle
history of the Solar Wars, for instance -- but some further development
of the
smaller powers would be interesting (Just what does the OU, etc. do
while the
big guys are slugging it out?). As I said above, I would like to see the
timeline
_extended_ to give some details of what happened next.
  I would prefer all such stuff to be in specialised supplements (Fleet
books,
etc.), rather than take up large amounts of space in generalised
expansions.
Two pages per MT-style rulebook would be adequate, or more (say, 4) in
an
FT-universe publication.

5) I'm ambivalent about FT fiction. I'd probably look at it and then
decide if I
wanted it on an individual story/book basis. I could happily do without
it, though.

6) "Accuracy" -- well, to some extent, you pays your money and takes
your
choice. Account for these things if you must, but ignoring AI, genetic
engineering, etc. is equally valid because a) we don't know how, or even
IF such
things would work, and b) even if they do work, there's no guarantee
that they'll
be used; other consideration like politics, religion and the like may
get in the
way (remember Dune and the Orange Catholic Bible? There goes the AIs...)

7) Definitely "men" vs "men". AIs are interesting, and may even be
superior in
some applications, but the excitement of space travel is getting out
there and
doing it yourself.

8) Isn't that sort of thing ["science posts"] what this list is for?
FT's great
strength is that one can use it as a basis for so many different types
of game,
so talking about science is one way of defining what players might do to
jazz up
the game system to suit themselves. Let's keep the discussion friendly,
by all
means, but talking about real or imagined science is a good way to spark
new
ideas to use on the game table.

Phil
------------------------------------------------------------
"If you let a smile be your umbrella... 
   you'll get wet teeth!"
   -- a forgotten comedian, quoted by me: Phil Atcliffe
				      (p-atclif@uwe.ac.uk)