Fw: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)
From: "Roger Gerrish" <Roger.Gerrish@b...>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:48:17 -0400
Subject: Fw: 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?
As backgrounds go it is fairly interesting, reminds me a little of GDWs
'2300AD' future history which I quite enjoyed.
As many of the FT players I game with use GZG miniatures and are
with the background
we use it as the basis for scenarios and campaigns.
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
> B5, homegrown)?
Star Trek (own development) B5 (Indy's rules)
> 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?
I assume the Fleet Book will expand this by nature of its content. If
background info enhances playing of FT then it can have as many pages as
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Why not, if its good SF don't care what the background is, please 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
As this is a game about 'Energy weapons', Starships and FTL Drives I'm
quite happy with PSB.
However I do follow the posts on 'Real Science' with interest and have
incorporated some ideas into my games as purely optional rules.
Personally, I think if we ever get 'Out There' and heaven forbid fight
There', it will be with vehicles and with weapons quite unlike what we
extrapolating now. To me thats the best thing about FT its generic, its
systems and mechanics can be applied to any number of backgrounds and
> 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."
I tend to look at the future warfare represented by FT to be similar to
that of 20th century naval warfare but in the medium of Outer Space (now
theres a lovely old term).So I tend to visualise my fighters and ships
being crewed by Humans or BEMs, Yes I Know ship and fighter casualties
very high but I like to think that escape systems and SAR capabilities
have also advanced, so although a ship may be totalled their is a
reasonably good chance that many of the crew got away and were either
rescued or captured.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Love the posts, if I don't like them, I can always delete them.