Re: (DS): Systems per Class

Glenn Wilson wrote:

>Maybe that's what seems to drive O. O. to what to rationalize them -
they
>are 'biology' (soft, fuzzy and chaotic) rather then 'chemistry'
(precise,
>accurate, and predictable) all of which fit the Engineer approach to
the
>world.

Completely incorrect. I wouldn't mind if they were soft, fuzzy, chaotic 
*and futuristic*; the main reason I want to revise them is that they're 
"SF" games which are soft, fuzzy, chaotic *and very very 1980s*.

I don't consider the 1980s to be "Science Fiction". To me, the 1980s are

*history*, even if you add a few chrome details like grav engines and 
plasma guns. I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim to
be, 
not historical games in disguise :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry