Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

I don't have the time to spend writing a lot of house-rules and 
playtesting them, etc... So when I buy a set of rules (which I and my 
gaming group did, when one had to buy FT). I want them to be complete, 
ready and playable and near-balanced.  It's what I pay for when I buy
rules.

FT's rules aren't balanced.  They have some serious breakage in certain 
areas that has caused my gaming group to eschew FT in favor of other 
space-ship combat rules that I'll neglect to specifically name here. 
Thats just the fact of things in my gaming group, I don't intend that to

be a "bash" on GZG.  It's a good company, and you won't hear me saying 
otherwise.

FT-III, insofar as it's intended to fix breakages in the rules, would 
give me something to look at and consider rules-wise.  It might get my 
gaming group back into FT.  So there's one perspective on what the point

is for at least a few people in publishing new rules mechanisms.

I haven't stopped using GZG ships though, neither has the rest of my 
group, and I'm still selling GZG ships at conventions.	That's the 
beauty of GZG's products.  No lock-in to either the figures or the
rules.

--Flak

john tailby wrote:
<<<SNIP>>>
> With all the full thrust gaming groups taking their rules off in 
> different directions and the game essentially being open source for so

> long is there really any point in publishing new rules mechanisms? 
> Different gaming groups have taken their version of the game and run 
> with it so it's not really one game any more but thousands of
different 
> versions.
>  
> John
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l