Don't ruin full thrust!

There's been a bit said about "FTIII" and changes to the game. 

FT, IMHO has been successful because, it hasn't tried to bind it's
players to particular system or a particular universe.

Jon made it plain in his comments in FT that he didn't want to do that
and he created a simple common framework through which the players
could complicate as much as they wished through house and player
written rules. look at the web pages and see what folks have done! 
   
Speaking as former SFB player, I praised the lord when this game came
out. The "toad syndrome" that ASL, SFB, GW and most big RPG's have
followed which turned players into consumers, more supplements, more
releases and errata which becomes addenda which becomes the fifth
version of the rules.

Do we want to go this way with Full Thrust? 

NO!  I Say!  (waits for applause, not a sausage)

Jon indicated his distaste for this manipulative marketing approach in
the editorial content of the rules and has, through considered quality
releases in More Thrust and DS II given the players a choice of what
*they* might like to consider, even letting Jim Webster plug his rules
as well!   

His co-operative approach in writing the rules has transmitted to
players worldwide.

Eric, Adam, Robin, Chad and myself all seem to have been attracted to
the game by it's essential simplicity, where imagimnation, concensus
and fun,  rather than rulebooks or a legalistic approach let the
players make what they like out of the game.

Write more supplements by all means, flesh out the universe with Fleet
Books, offer some alternatives for what players see as as I'd ask GZG
to consider with extreme care a massive rewrite of the basic game
system because of what really are rather "anal" concerns about play
balance or "unreality".

Trading off play balance against simplicity and what will mean a
requirement for players to learn the game all over again as well as
buying more books. 

Full Thrust may well break into those who use the original and new
rules. This approach depressed WRG ancients gaming for a long time
e.g.. 6th edition versus 7th  v. DBM. Don't let this happen to FT.

Players can "balance" games on a tactical or reality basis for
themselves and have for a long time. 

They will modify, include or omit things to suit themselves, their
scenario  and their opponents. This is a fun silly game we play and if
you start getting  worked up about it or start playing for sheep
stations, you need to seek a psychiatrist's advice.  

When my SFB opponents started arguing about "Race Y can't use rule X
in supplement Z" and whether to use it or not I gave it up I'd hate to
have to give away FT.  

I'm going to canvas the players in at the Canberra Tournament  in
January and see how they feel about this. 

Best regards all!

--
Bob Blanchett
bobblanchett@iname.com
----------------------