Re: Star Trek Rules

>    I would like to know if most people on the list use a common set of
>rules for Star Trek or many home grown sets. I found a set I kinda
liked on
>the web, but it seems to produce some unbalanced results.
>
>    Also no ,matter which rule set I use, the ships turn out to all be
very
>large to make room for the extra systems that all ST ships seem to
have, ie:
>shields, transporters, tractor beams. Fighters as such seem to work out
to
>small escort ships, based on the fact that they all (except Bajoran and
>Kazon) have warp power. For example, a type IV shuttle is mass 2
(FTL,drive
>and sheild system). An armed shuttle is mass 4.
>
>Scott

Though many people will probably disagree, I would strongly suggest
disregarding the basic FT construction system when trying to rate ships
for
specific shows or backgrounds such as ST, SW or B5. The problem with
using
a construction system to try and reflect the capabilities of ships on TV
or
film is that mostly the ships are designed for dramatic effect, not
military effect. For the B5 EFSB, we threw any idea of a construction
system out the airlock and just went for giving each class as close as
we
could to the abilities and weapons it has in the series, with Mass and
damage points based on an ad-hoc assessment of how it looked compared to
other ships in the show.

Using this theory, for ST you could start with one class as a
"baseline",
say whichever version of the Enterprise fits the time period you're
doing,
and set it at a reasonable mass (say around 60-80??); everything else
should then be judged from this, and given weapon/system fits as close
as
possible to what you see in the shows.

The FT design system is a starting point for both the GZG and
"freelance"
backgrounds, but don't feel too restricted by it if you are trying do
recreate something else.

Jon (GZG)