Re: Background Irrelevancy--and Poll

> 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? 
 I like the background as a starting point.  It is nice to have a common

 background available (but not crammed down our throats) that we all
have a 
 chance to know. GZG's willingness to allow other backgrounds is great
but 
 when meeting new players who just got the rules and at conventions the
GZG 
 background is common knowledge
 
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it? 
 I read it, let it sit, then when I got DSII, read it again.  Game rules

 have to include a few scenarios and I enjoy the scenarios more when
they 
 have some background instead of being ships in the middle of nowhere
for 
 no reason other than to blast each other.
 
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star 
> Wars, B5, homegrown)? 
 Starfleet Wars and others depending on my mood.  With all the new rules

 coming out soon (B5 Wars, Earthforce Sourcebook, Star Blazers Fleet 
 Battles, Imperial Squadrons, etc), this may change ;-)
 
> 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?
 I like the current mix of background to rules, some pages at the end of

 the rule books but mostly rules.  I will get the Fleet Book when it
shows 
 up because I think the GZG background is interesting enough to develop 
 further and I want to see the design philosophies behind each fleet
 
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
 Yes, though the first installment must be high quality for me to get
any 
 more
 
> 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."
 Fun first, but with enough reality fit in to make it plausible
 
> 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." 
 With the current scale of FT, I don't think it matters.  Once a
campaign 
 system is out there, then it could become a factor.  Fighter kills are 
 only mission kills and after the battle, shuttles would comb the area 
 after the battle.  Something like the following would be used: for each

 fighter lost roll a d6, Manned fighters; 1-2, pilot killed-ftr
destroyed, 
 3 pilot killed-ftr repairable, 4, pilot recovered but injured misses
next 
 battle-ftr repairable, 5 pilot recovered healthy-ftr destroyed, 6 pilot

 recovered healthy-ftr repairable.  AI fighters; 1-4 fighter destroyed,
5-6 
 fighter repairable.
 
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
 I enjoy them to a point.  The AI thread went too far for me and I
delete 
 most of them now.
 
 Dean Gundberg
 dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com