Re: [OFFICIAL] Colony lists?

Jon Tuffley wrote:
>1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a particularly
>enthusiastic cross-section of FT/DS/SG players). A star map/colony list
>that is as close to known astronomical data as possible,
    Yes.

> or one that
>applies a bit of artistic licence (as most SF authors do)
    Where not overruled by science and what we know now. After all,
humanity
can't image planets in other star systems yet. But we can guesstimate
what
stars would have planets and which would be habitable.

>and allows there
>to be planets wherever they best suit the storyline?
    Let there be planets where science shows there can be planets.

>If the latter, do we
>stick to "real" stars only,
    Keep to the real stars.

>or make the whole thing up once we get past a
>few LY out?
    Keep to the real stars.

>2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
>modification of it (on the assumption that those who hate the
background
>won't be interested in all this anyway!), do you actually WANT to see
it
>defined in this sort of detail,
    It would be nice this way.

>or left loose (as we have done so far) to
>allow more freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.?
    Leave some set aside by UN mandate for minor powers (say 30 - 40%).

>Would
>you want to see detail of specific events/places in the timeline, and
>exhaustive lists of whose settlements are on which worlds etc.?
    Background detail is always nice to have. My NZ$50.00 is ready!
(Putting
money where mouth is!).

>This sort
>of background "fluff' is fairly easy to produce once you get it rolling
>(provided it is carefully cross-checked for contradictions - I'm sure
you
>guys (and girls - sorry Beth....) will gleefully go through it all with
>fine-tooth combs... <grin>),
    Yes, it should be self-consistent, perhaps with a campaign system?

>but I am aware that some people can also see
>it as too restrictive on their creativity.
    Leave a space for development by minor powers, for those players who
are
emperors in their own minds! If players disagree over who has what, let
them
fight it out using FT/MT/FB rules!

>For gameplay purposes it is probably better to keep endurance
relatively
>short, even for military ships, to prevent bypassing of large chunks of
>territory - if layovers have to be fairly frequent then it becomes more
>tactically necessary to hold star systems rather than just detour round
>them.
    I agree with this.

Andrew Martin
-------------
Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
 http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/
Usagi Yoyimbo Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/UY/