RE: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)
From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@m...>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 06:03:12 -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 battle >and
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,
Nope, GZG did a reasonable job so I'll use it.
>4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a
>timeline, in future supplements? If so, how many pages out of a
>sized rulebook would you be willing to give up to the
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
>6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard
>background taking into effect things like AI development,
>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,
>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
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