Re: Conversion reasons for FT...

>Fine - but if you set values according to one RPG background, those
same
>values may be completely off for another background. Crew sizes and
ship
>masses in, for example, the Honor Harrington universe are something
very,
>very different from crews and masses in FASA's Renegade Legion
universe. 
>
>I have no problem with universe-specific conversion rates, but you have

>to keep in mind that they are just that - universe-specific. If GZG 
>starts specifying exactly what a MASS unit is, or how large crews are,
FT 
>gets less generic - which is a Bad Thing <tm>.

Once a Hull mass was defined as being 50 Cargo spaces, it already took
the
road to becomming "defined".  What can I say <shrug>?

>However, a campaign structure doesn't really need specific mass/volume 
>ratios and crew sizes. 

You are correct as far as FT goes that the above is not specifically
needed
- until you start taking trained personnel losses, and need to make them
up...

>How big is one Hull Space in Starfire? How many 
>people are there in a Personnel Point? Neither is really specified, 
>although you can determine rough sizes for at least pps. 

STARFIRE, as a game is fun.  STARFIRE as a universe as given by the
rules -
stinks.  STARFIRE as a story as writen by David Weber and Steve White,
is a
great universe.  Why do I say the rules do not fit the story?  According
to
one person's math, Starfire Hull units could only have been around 500
cubic
meters in volume, and yet, according the another guy, who refused to
give
rational numbers backed by "infered evidence, the volume had to be
closer to
5000 cubic meters.  When looking at known volumes required by man in
general, systems in the game were generally too large for a volume of
5000
and didn't make sense.	When looking at volumes where a Hull space took
up
only 500 cubic meters, some of the hull space requirements didn't make
sense.	In all, when the game was designed, had the game designer had a
specific hull volumn in mind, all other subsequent game design could and
would have been consistant.  Such (IMHO) was not the case...

>Once again, 
>leave enough for many different backgrounds - don't fix the campaign 
>system to one single background. It is quite easily done,
unfortunately.

>From my point of view - if the author of the campaign rules were to
specify
one set of "optional" rules giving actual ratios, anyone who didn't like
the
optional rules could change them to suit their tastes.	At least, by
having
been given a set of guidelines, people can either follow them, or have
some
idea of what is "possible".  You would have to admit, that it would be
silly
for one player to state that crew requirements are such that you need to
fit
1000 people in a volume that can only fit 200.	This is all that I am
working towards with this thread - a rational approach that while
allowing
other violations of the known universe with respect to physics and such,
that other things are kept reasonable.	If I have to push the "I
believe"
button too much, the game becomes a juvinile "hooks and ladders" game,
and I
lose interest.	

Hal

PS - while I don't agree with your stance, I do agree that one of the
strengths of FT is the fact that the author allowed the players to
define
what is reality, and what is not.  However, I think it would be silly
not to
accept that at some point, the game will be "defined" , where underlying
assumptions will have to be consistant if the game is to be built up
upon in
the future...