Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Heard" data-source="post: 2304042" data-attributes="member: 7280">Internal consistency is the key. I can do Star Wars or Star Trek (though the single FASA Star Trek game I played in ended in a very non-Trek mutiny against the imbecility of the captain) but I still do better in my much beloved Traveller, which actually predates my D&amp;D playing by a few months because it was easier buying those little black books than coming up with the cash to buy all the rules I &quot;needed&quot; to play in that newfangled AD&amp;D game that obsoleted my brand new boxed sets. I even showed up for a Farscape game once, only to decide that not only did I not like the show still, but I couldn't get into the game either. I might be the only person here that's actually played Ringworld. I ran a several years long Cyberpunk game with dozens of active players (show up or not, the important thing was that people would shoot at you). Star Frontiers was fun, but I think I spent more time playing the wargame (whose name I can't remember) based upon it. I didn't like Gamma World, because I thought it was goofier than TMNT. I'd ran enough Interlock-based Fringeworthy-as-science-fiction games that I was a bit funked when Stargate the movie came out, but if I could get anyone to play in a game of Stargate around here now I'd probably run it.Anyways, I guess my point is: As long as it's not Rifts, based on a show with muppets in it, or in any way relies on Trekkies on ego trips I'm game for science fiction rpgs. Seriously, it's the setting that's important in science fiction - not the ruleset. Just like any other rpg (though I'm going to kill someone if they get me addicted to another expensive-yet-seductively-comfortable ruleset anytime soon).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Heard, post: 2304042, member: 7280"] Internal consistency is the key. I can do Star Wars or Star Trek (though the single FASA Star Trek game I played in ended in a very non-Trek mutiny against the imbecility of the captain) but I still do better in my much beloved Traveller, which actually predates my D&D playing by a few months because it was easier buying those little black books than coming up with the cash to buy all the rules I "needed" to play in that newfangled AD&D game that obsoleted my brand new boxed sets. I even showed up for a Farscape game once, only to decide that not only did I not like the show still, but I couldn't get into the game either. I might be the only person here that's actually played Ringworld. I ran a several years long Cyberpunk game with dozens of active players (show up or not, the important thing was that people would shoot at you). Star Frontiers was fun, but I think I spent more time playing the wargame (whose name I can't remember) based upon it. I didn't like Gamma World, because I thought it was goofier than TMNT. I'd ran enough Interlock-based Fringeworthy-as-science-fiction games that I was a bit funked when Stargate the movie came out, but if I could get anyone to play in a game of Stargate around here now I'd probably run it. Anyways, I guess my point is: As long as it's not Rifts, based on a show with muppets in it, or in any way relies on Trekkies on ego trips I'm game for science fiction rpgs. Seriously, it's the setting that's important in science fiction - not the ruleset. Just like any other rpg (though I'm going to kill someone if they get me addicted to another expensive-yet-seductively-comfortable ruleset anytime soon). [/QUOTE]

Verification