Prev: Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...) Next: Re: FT: Missiles and Gas Tanks

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

From: Absolutely Barking Stars <JW4@b...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 04:00:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...)

At 01:00 PM 7/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>nothing more? 
Well, I'm not living it or anything. I do think it's one of the better
backgrounds though. I'll certainly be buying the
getting-towards-nessie-status fleet book.

>2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it? 
I read it..

>3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
>B5, homegrown)? 
Um, not as yet, no. I might try B5 but it strikes me (from the series)
battles will be a bit dull, as it appears there are very few races on a
technological par with each other.
>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 typical
>sized rulebook would you be willing to give up to the background?
Not in the rulebook. If they are going to put that much detail in it
deserves a book of it's own.

>5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
No. I have yet to see a 'game connected' book / short story collection I
would line a budgie cage with, let alone read.

>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
Um, how exactly do we tell how 'accurate' a far future background is?
Anything in this is all PSB. Relativity is all very well, but it is
possible that at some point it'll go the same way as the earth is flat
theory. Whose predictions are better than others?
>7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts
>fleet ships? "Don't bother too much about AI, it's men versus men or
>versus bugs that interest me." 
Quite so. I doubt it will matter much either way. Besides if AI's have
around for a while they might be accepted as equal of humans, In
it matters not.

>8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
well there is that to a degree. The point at which I diverge from the
science' crowds is when it stops being FUN. Whether the fighters are
piloted by AI's or people doesn't matter to the gods of FUN. If you are
using a vector movement system that is superaccurate but takes 20
to move a ship means the gods of FUN will look harshly upon you and your
fellow players will drift away to watch Teletubbies. The gods if FUN
frown on players who play Kra'Vak because they are better  but smile on
players who play Sa'Vasku as their unpredictability makes them FUN.

At the end of the day, I think people should remember this is, i
essence, a
form of entertainment. That which makes it less entertaining is surplus.

'And I love what we are but I hate what I am
 And I wanna be like you but I hate when you're like them'
		   Maria McKee 'What Else you Wanna Know'
BWFC Fans List Home Page -

Prev: Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll (was Re: AIs and such...) Next: Re: FT: Missiles and Gas Tanks