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? 

	Actually I do for SG. SG works at the tactical level. So a good
idea of protagonists motivation is nice. Also it gives the mood for the
engagements. You know, desparate NAC troops fighting against the
planetary invasion force of the Solar Union.

	>2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it? 
	>	I read it (but with a couple grains of salt :) )

Well, I certainly read the SG and DS background stuff. Liked it too.

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

Nope, GZG did a reasonable job so I'll use it.

	>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?

Actually yse I would. A little more expansion on the lesser
nations/organisations. OUDF, LLAR and the likes.

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

Any creative setting would translate well and breed plenty of new ideas
for scenarios/games.
> .
> 
	>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."

The generic approach has been fine so far. As Jon stated, the background
is provided to give players a framework to play within IF they wish. I
do so wish.

	>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." 

Less relevant to SG which is man versus man.

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

Perhaps if it continues for much longer it would be more deserving to
move the discussion from the list to a Newsgroup? There are obviously a
lot of insiteful observations made that would better served with a wider
audience.