Prev: Re: Vector Rules -- engines Next: Re: Vector Rules

Re: Vector Rules are Backround Dependent

From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@a...>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:52:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Vector Rules are Backround Dependent

On Oct 8, 1997 at 10:59:42 AM, Tim Jones <>
Status: RO

> Thus take the *current* generic Real Thrust rules and add
> for your background where they make sense. 
> Do we gain anything from a discussion on the validity of generic rules

> for each genre? Probably not a lot. 

I think there are some backgrounds for which vector movement isn't 
appropriate, as well.  Star Trek and Star Wars don't really make sense
vector movement, the former becasue of handwaving, the latter because it
simply ignored.

Note, however, that a large chunk of the current conversation was about
rotation*, not about vector movement per se, and many of the points
whether we are discussing a system for which vector movement is
applicable or 
not.  To use ST:TNG as an example (which I hate doing, but it fits),
realized that using "conventional" ship construction, the Enterprise
fold like a house of cards anytime it tried to turn outside of warp. 
For this 
reason he invented the Structural Integrity Field, which runs through
the main 
structural members and the hull, boosting the strength up to 125k%
higher than 
the material alone.  Handwaving, yes, but necessary handwaving.

-- Chris Weuve	 [My opinions, not my employer's.]
------ (h) (w)		Vector movement for AoG's B5
game, (perm)	books, stuff for sale and more

Prev: Re: Vector Rules -- engines Next: Re: Vector Rules