Re: Discussion topic - rewriting (future) history....?

In response to Jon's request, I went back and looked at the future 
history of the GZGverse -- and frankly, I can't find that much that's 
wrong with it. It should always be remembered that things change, and 
any attempt to predict more than the near future is doomed to failure 
before it starts. It's Chaos theory at its most basic level -- small 
effects build up to become major ones over time. With that said, most of

Jon's predictions are at least as valid as anyone else's; for every 
thing that didn't happen or is highly unlikely to -- like, say, the 
Romanovs returning -- there is a possible explanation that can be found 
for cetain events in the papers today which, while not what Jon may have

had in mind, still leads to the same place.

As an example, consider the case of Greece and the eurozone and their 
current travails. Suppose that Germany gets fed up with having to bail 
out Greece (and Spain, and possibly Portugal) to the tune of zillions of

euros, quarrels with France (who has always considered itself to be the 
natural leader of Europe) over it and eventually walks out of the EU and

the euro. Eastern Europe goes with the money (the revived Deutschmark) 
and follows them out. What do you have then? A East-West split in the EU

that isn't too much different from the FSE/NSL divide. I don't say it 
will happen, but it could.

Other events like the destruction of Israel and the conflicts in places 
like the rest of the Middle East, India and Asia could be all too likely

from what we hear. So overall there's not too much that needs revising, 
as far as I can see. The establishment of the NAC has always been the 
most shaky of the origins of the Big Four in my opinion, but even that 
is at least plausible, and that's all that's necessary. Perhaps the 
events of the next, say, 20 years could be reworked, but beyond that, 
Chaos rules -- not in the sense of lack of order, but in respect of 
unpredictablility, and the GZGverse future history is as valid as any 
other when looked at from this point in time.

There are aspects of GZGverse canon (and fanon, by which I mean the 
semi-official stuff about minor human nations that is included in things

like the GZGpedia) that I don't like, but I don't have to use them. I 
bought my GZG minis because I liked the ships, not because I wanted to 
use the game background. To be honest, I dislike most most game 
backgrounds; they are generally too focused on providing regular 
opportunities for conflict (case in point, the SFU, which warps Star 
Trek history out of all recognition so that the authors can have their 
Big War) to be terribly interesting. I like FT as a set of rules because

it is adaptable to any background and plays well; that it comes with a 
reasonably entertaining background is a bonus, and most of what lifts it

from the morass of other backgrounds comes from the work of people on 
this list.

So, apart from the very beginning of it, I would say that the history of

the GZGverse doesn't need a lot of work; I'd be more interested in 
revision of the latter part. I don't particularly like the history of 
the First Xeno War, specifically the way in which the Kra'Vak seem to be

unstoppable, which didn't seem to me to make sense in the light of their

description in MT and FB2 -- but that's my opinion, or taste really.

Phil