Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)
From: Chen-Song Qin <cqin@e...>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:29:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
> what happens to the ESU, NAC, etc. or is it just an excuse for a
> nothing more?
I got the games (SGII, DSII) mainly for the good game mechanics, not
background. Personally I don't prefer any particular background,
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
> B5, homegrown)?
no, I usually don't use any background, although I might want to
a really *creative* one myself. :)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
> timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a
> 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
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,
> fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or
> versus bugs that interest me."
It'll be men versus men regardless of any AI, unless your background is
not set around humans.