Re: Discussion topic - rewriting (future) history....?

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Popping my head in/up for jussst a moment here...

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote:

> On 20/10/2011 11:58 AM, Damond Walker wrote:
> >> My thought is, any time you spend considering the backstory canon
would
> >> probably be better spent working on minis or co-coordinating with
new
> >> rulesets.	In the end, we didn't play FT because of backstory
(though
> it's
> >> always nice to have) - we played FT because, it had good and fast
rules
> >> and nice looking miniatures.  I don't think revising the backstory
> >> will generate much, if anything in the way of new business, and
will
> >> risk alienating anybody who feels the 'backstory' has become less
> >> 'realistic' by the changes.
> >
> > Who is this "we" you are talking about?  Your local FT Admiral's
Club?
>
> Most of the friends I played with for the past 25 years.  For us, we
> bought stuff because of the big subject matter (starships, mostly.) 
Then,
> we decided to play it or not if we thought we could get a game in the
> amount of time we had.
>
> Case in point: all my friends loved Star Trek, but none of us played
> Star Fleet Battles because it just took too damn long.  We really
> liked the ideas behind Renegade Legion, but, when we actually came to
> play the game, we found it awkward and unwieldy, and we put it away.
> How many of us have picked up a game, played it, and then decided that
we
> weren't going to play it anymore?  What makes us decide that we're
> not going to play the game?  The plot?  Or whether or not the game is
> fun?
>

Alternate case in point. When I first got into FT, I did so for the ease
of
playability of the rules set (I was coming from SFB at the time).
However,
while I liked the rules as they stood, I found the timeline at the time
to
be wanting, and I wanted more fluff to my universe that I was going to
play
in. I'm in no way imaginative enough to just make it all up myself.  :-)

Besides, as far as I can tell, supporting fiction for Battletech and
Games
> Workshop and Halo (to pick three examples) didn't create massive game
> sales.

In regards to B'tech (I can't speak for the other two systems), I think
the
game system and the fluff fed on each other as they both matured. I used
to
play B'tech back in the late 80s, early 90s, then put it down. Picked it
back up again very recently and was stunned to see just how much it has
progressed and grown in that time, both the game system, and the fluff.

>  It was massive game sales that created the market for the
> fiction.  And to flip the question around: How many Battlestar
> Galactica games have found runaway success?  How many Stargate games?
> Heck, look at the GZG ECC schedule for the past 14 years - a bunch of
> FT canonical history stuff to be sure, but also a ton of variant
> universes, variant rules, different miniatures.  If the core game is
> good enough, people will play it.  (Do you think people care that
> Dominion's backstory is pure vanilla and almost completely
non-existent?)
>

I'll have to say, I do prefer a richer backstory than a blank background
to
game in. It gives me depth to the game system, which otherwise is merely
a
set of rules governing movement and combat of some non-descript units.

In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is this:  If Jon's really
> bothered by the fiction as it stands, he's welcome to change it.
> After all, it's his universe.  I'm of the opinion that it's fine, the
> same way that I have no problems with the fact the Eugenics Wars
happened
> ten years ago now.

(psst, damon; I think Jerry missed the Eugenics Wars, being all tucked
away
in Canada and all; don't tell him the details!)

>  He asked for opinions, I offered.  He's quite welcome
> to think I'm daft, the same way you do.  :)
>

Jerry, you once flew into a planet...  ;-)

>
> But, if this change is motivated by the thought that changing the
canon
> will make a significant difference in terms of sales or recognition
> of the FT or Ground Zero Games brand, I don't think that's going to
> happen without a lot of work on a lot of things, as well as a radical
> change in the nature of entertainment in the 21st century.  (Because,
> let's face facts - the traditional miniature gamer is a dying breed.)
>

The parenthetical statement I would strongly disagree with. There has
been a
fairly significant resurgence in miniatures gaming over the past 10
years.
As one data point, how many companies now produce 15mm figures that
didn't
10 years ago? Quite a number. Ditto on starships (but not quite to the
same
magnitude level as 15mm infantry/tank producers). Flames of War has done
a
lot to reignite WW2 miniatures gaming. The game shop I play FoW at has
seen
a growing number of players in that system. A number of these players
have
expressed interest in expanding out into other systems (though mostly
historical, not so much future/SF), if they didn't already play them to
begin with. Ambush Alley has come out with a some sets of rules in the
past
year or so (and just this week, their SF rules set) that is fairly
popular
with gamers around these here parts. I keep getting asked to join in AA
games pretty regularly (but my limited available time prevents me from
diving headlong into them). The Wings of War is another minis-based game
system that is fairly popular with some groups around here (I missed out
on
a group game a few weeks ago, but one guy pulled a 'Jerry Han' when he
flew
his WW1 biplane straight into a dirigible :-D ).

But as I said, that's my opinion, based on my own personal experiences,
> and what I know of the gaming and publishing industries.  Feel free to
> ignore me.  You wouldn't be the first, you won't be the last. :)
>

Your opinion is exactly what Jon was soliciting.  :-)  Since each of us
are
coming from different groups and different experiences, we all have
different feedback to give.

I'm withholding mine on the FT fluff for the moment, though.  ;-)

Mk