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

In message <199707191700.NAA22471@smtp2.sympatico.ca>
	  Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So, here's a quick 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? 

The people I play FT with do use it - our fleets are from the
background (NSL and ESU _really_ hate each other :) ), and we
base fleet design around what's suggested in the background.

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

Read it.

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

Nope. Currently, I only use FT for wargaming. I've got a couple
of SF RPG campaigns in mind, that could use a spacecraft combat
system, in which case I'd use a (very) hacked version of FT,
since FT wouldn't work very well with any background I came up
with.

> 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?

Nope.

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

Nope.

> 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."

I'd want an accurate background, but then I'd most probably
disagree with it (in fact, I mostly disagree with what there
is already), so I'd change it.

> 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." 

What I'd like to see is the technology background, and then
play with the logical progression from that. If there's good
reasons why there are no AIs, then we should have men in
fighters. Both backgrounds can make for interesting games.

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

I like science posts. One of the things I *don't* like about
FT is that the science is too indistinct. I'd rather it was
fleshed out more (especially for things like scale). I'd
rather have something I disagree with, then nothing at all.

-- 
Be seeing you,
Sam.