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

> 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?

 I got the games (SGII, DSII) mainly for the good game mechanics, not
the
background.  Personally I don't prefer any particular background,
besides,
most of the games out there have pretty ordinary stuff, with very little
real creativity.  On top of all that, I've got a mixture of cheap GW
plastics, MicroArmor, Renegade Legion, and Silent Death (good-looking
fighter designs).  I group them by function rather than background.

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

 no, I usually don't use any background, although I might want to
develop
a really *creative* one myself. :)

> 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?

Seriously though, I think any "enhancements" to the background should be
done separately (in a fiction anthology?) rather than mixed in with the
rules/supplements.  We already have GW which sacrifices rules for fluff
(and increasingly bad fluff too).

> 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."

If any background is going to be included, then an accurate one would be
more desirable. There's already way too many technofantasy backgrounds.

> 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."

It'll be men versus men regardless of any AI, unless your background is
not set around humans.