Re: [fh] why justify? was Re: [OT]-Interstellar Trade: A new take

>no, we haven't; in fact, playability is one of the key reasons
we're doing
>this. now, you are of course utterly correct that a background
for a space
>wargame with no colonies or trade in space would be worthless
and dumb,
>and that for playability we need to say that these things
exist. however,
>to some people, there is a big difference between saying 'this
is so
>because we want it to be so' and 'this so so because of the
following
>sensible reasons'.

Which can be PSB, as long as it sounds good.  "Hey, our ships
use Zero Point Energy drives, so of course they're more
maneuverable."
>
>this is indeed the heart of the matter - we need to generate a
>high-quality FH/FE which supports good gameplay. we need a
framework for
>numerous, diverse, fractious star powers, with economically
accessible
>combat and a plethora of motivations for it. we need space
colonies, space
>stations, space trade, space freighters, space pirates, space
navies,
>space explorers, space politics, space bars (to keep the words
separated,
>of course!), the space kitchen sink.

Um, you're getting carried away here.  :-)

>anyway, i'll finish by suggesting we pro-detailers write a
'justifiers'
>manifesto', and post it either on the GZG-L website or the
'pedia, so that
>if anyone wonders why we feel the need to do it, we can tell
them. i
>suggest we start as follows "A spectre is haunting the
Tuffleyverse - the
>spectre of Justification ...".

You're elected, go to it.  You have till tomorrow night for a
first draft. :-)