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

In a message dated 97-07-19 13:02:54 EDT, you write:

<< 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? 

It is fun and interesting. My interest in Politics makes this a good
read.
 
 >>2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it? 

I read it after studying the rules.
 
>> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Wars,
 B5, homegrown)? 

For the games I just kind of fake it. (sorry)
 
>>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?

Not in the rule book, as a supliment & a short story book - YES. I would
pay
money for that! (Paying money is the only real endorsement that counts!)
 
>> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?

Yes
 
>> 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 hope this doesn't sound too contradictory but I would like a hard
science
background that doesn't get into too much detail. ( Let everyone fill in
their own details, we can't seem to agree on them anyway!)
 
 >>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." 

I want to see guy in the vehicles - by the time you get true AI's (the
SF
version) they will be both citizens and just as valuable as biologic
people
anyway.
 
>> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a
game!"

No, if you don't have the science posts you run the risk of drifting
into the
situation where you have "wizards" and "magic wands" but call them
"AI's" and
"computers".
After all it is TV that tells us "your average laptop computer is
capable of
targeting a man in Russia from the USA	with millimeter precision." (
having
no sensors or Mark I eyeball input only, on top of that!!!!!!!)  Bah
Humbug
on Bad(TV) Science thinking!

Tom Hughes