Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)

> So, here's a quick poll:
> 
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
interested in
> what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a
battle and
> nothing more?

Hmmm, I'd say somewhat.  We (meaning three) have modified it a little; 
changed a few of the Powers That Be a little, added a few minor groups, 
whatnot.
> 
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?

I read it after I was completely (somewhat) versed with game rules.

 
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Wars,
> B5, homegrown)?

Ugh! No.  At least not something from a copyrighted genre like B5 or
Star 
Drek: Deep Space 90210.  Actually, I have thought up a very small
skeleton of 
a background that would reflect FT's movement rules. (They work more
like 
you're sailing through water, rather than flying through space.)  My
thinking 
was a 19th century genre with outer space being discovered to be a fluid
of 
ether.	Have most of the stuff happening around the Solar System with
maybe 
some ooutposts at Alpha Centauri and whatnot; maybe some H.G. Wells or
early 
Heinlein aliens on some of the worlds to make it exotic.  However, I 
mentioned the idea to a friend and he said there was actually a role
playing 
game that was similar to this.	Any notion as to what it was?

> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
detailed
> timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a
typical
> sized rulebook would you be willing to give up to the background?

Hmmmm, possibly.  But only as a detached work that one can voluntarily
buy; 
some people aren't interested in the FT background.  My preference for a

background suppliment would be an expanded historical timeline; stats on

various powers, types of ships used, current economic level, who's
friends, 
who's enemies, etc.  However, I would like it set at a static "present."
 I 
like my BattleTech set in 3020s (or there abouts), not the Clan fighting

3057.	Besides, that way each FT gaming group can evolve their universe
in 
their own way.

> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?

No.
 
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
> background taking into effect things like AI development, genetic
> engineering, relativity, etc." or ""Star Wars was accurate enough for
me."

Fairly loose.  Mind you, I am a big proponent of vectored movement, but
hard 
core science in science fiction is sometimes tedious, and sometimes 
completely wrong regardless of how well thought out.  (I imagine Arthur
C. 
Clarke really thought we'd have orbiting populated satellites by now
when he 
wrote 2001.)  Besides, sometimes people do want the "Tetrion Iamibic 
Pentameter Discombobulator" ray gun.  Sounds like a lot of gibberish,
but 
hey, it works great against them nasty invading Winnebagos.....
 
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
escorts and
> fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or
men
> versus bugs that interest me."

Manned ships.  I once read a very serious paper on why machines would
explore 
space rather than men.	A well thought out arguement basically stating
that 
machines (read AIs) are more suited for the cold vacuum of space, could 
handle the jounrey better, acquire more knowledge, etc.  He made a
strong 
arguement, and I think he was 100% wrong.  Humans have the drive.  We
went to 
the moon 28 years ago, as of tomorrow.	Didn't need to; we had sent 
satellites, rockets, gizmos, whatever.	But sending a remote surveyer
will 
never be enough for humankind.	We will conquer this final frontier, and

although there may be some smart machines to help us, we will be there. 
Call 
it human arrogance.  Same thing for space warfare.

> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"

Nah, it is entertaining sometimes.  Think of this as place for Space 
Philosophy 101.