 October 17, 2007 - 11:43pm | I don't think the problem is Zeb's. As I've demonstrated with the AER
(Anniversary Edition), there's very little difference between Zeb's and
Alpha Dawn. What Zeb's did was bundle Kimber's Dragon Magazine articles
with Alpha Dawn and provide the Column Shift mechanic, individualized
skills, an extended Timeline, and 4 new races (granted, badly done
races). Though the skills were multiplied, the skills mechanic has more
freedom, so I don't really see it as compounding the problem. A little
cosmetic adjustment to the new races provided and use the timeline and
it's still Star Frontiers. Why? Because all it did was add to the story
line. You can still use the Alpha Dawn mechanics with it (as I've done
with AER). Mechanically is the only way that Zeb's messed with the Star
Frontiers game system, but it didn't do it in an entirely incompatable
way. Dump the Zeb's mechanics and the game is still playable as Star
Frontiers. It wasn't just that, Corjay. Zebs was supposed to help Star Frontiers,
to be a new edition, at a time when sci-fi gaming was beginning to
blossom and Traveller was taking the spotlight as the hard-science
supergame. Some of the ideas were great - but it fell so short of all
of our expectations for many reasons: a modified game mechanic that
nobody liked, artwork that fell way short of what we were used to and
what Traveller was putting out, a skill system that went for quantity
rather than quality, races that were just so silly they were unplayable
- even my 7 year old thinks they're dumb, etc. It's not that it's
unsalvagable -- I get that. It's that it was such a dissappointment we
just wish it was never put out. It did kill the line. After
lackluster interest in that book, TSR didn't publish any further SF
material, and even Dragon Magazine halted its sci-fi section. I fully understand why people rank on the mechanics and the races, but not anything else. Except for the mechanics, what Kimber did with Zeb's is basically what is happening in the pages of the Frontiersman. To me, it's like that one Highlander movie that took place in the future: it just should never have been made, and it's better to pretend it wasn't -- just take what few salvagable elements it had that were good and ignore it entirely. That's the opinion most StarFrontiers gamers take. The disappointment is surely understandable, but it has been 22 years, and the community is fragmented (albeit a small fragment regarding Zeb's, but a fragment all the same), and there is some good stuff there that gets used today even by professed Zeb's haters (as Bill conceded in the Highlander analogy). The Mentalist skills were provided at the end of Alpha Dawn Remastered, because it is recognized that some would appreciate it and that it is actually done in a Star Frontiersish way. I like to look at what is salvageable even from those things I don't like. Here's a list of things I have found exceptionally salvageable: 1. Out of the six main pieces of art, outside of the races and diagrams, four were well done: The front page (which everybody loves), p.26, p.62, p.87, then there's the logos of the Mega-corporations and the Cadrés and Cults. 2. The skills list is definitely unnecessarily extensive, but the skills mechanic only needs a minor adjustment to be exceptional on its own, or no adjustment if taken in tandem with the original skills of Alpha Dawn (as demonstrated in the option in the AER). 3. Some skills were understandably, if unnecessarily, merged, keeping the number lower than it could have been, but useful for streamlining the classic game if those mergers are applied to Alpha Dawn. 4. Provide vehicle piloting skills 5. Made weapons skills more easily accessible 6. Separated the environmental skills from the science skills. 7. The Mega-corporations (originally in Dragon Magazine) 8. Cadrés and Cults (originally in Dragon Magazine) 9. Variety of Rafflurs (originally in Ares; though I still prefer the proton beam designation) 10. The Timeline (Just need to correct the Vrusk over Dralasite error; see the AER for solution) 11. Breakdown of planets of the Frontier 12. Lots of new equipment. 13. Maintains the flavor, story, and original mechanics of Star Frontiers, with the exception of skills and the Column Shift mechanic. 14. Mentalist needs some adjustment, but is playable. 15. I think the Osakar and Mechanon need little modification and are original (it was the artwork alone that failed these two races), but that's my opinion. The Ifshnit doesn't actually match its artwork, and it is the artwork that has colored people's interpretation of the Ifshnit and how they play them. The Humma are the ones requiring the most salvage, but are salvageable with a little cosmetic adjustment in its description. I haven't personally found fault with these races as races. It is strictly their appearance that proves unpalatable and that is the fault of poor art. As a side note, we are currently working on cybernetics and mutations which were originally planned by Kimber Eastland to be a Zeb's Volume II. What exactly is hated: 1. The Column Shift mechanic. The game is already simple, and I've studied this system backwards and forwards and can say with confidence that you trade die rolling for table referencing. I and most people will take the die rolling any day. It also oversimplifies damage, providing less variety and too standardized. 2. Too many skills. 3. Bad Diagrams 4. Mentalist abilities are hated only by some, others can take it or leave it, and others love it. 5. The Ifshnit and the Humma are tired and childish respectively. Some dislike the Osakar, but mostly due to artistic representation, and the only thing I ever hear against the Mechanon is the art. 6. The book was poorly edited and designed. 7. Came at a time when quality over quanity was being stressed by other gaming companies but failed in this volume. I view it from the standpoint that if Zeb's came first, the same view and arguments could have been made toward Alpha Dawn (save for the artwork, but only barely). This argument is temporal and not mechanically or aesthetically related. As you can see, there's actually quite a lot that is salvageable, and indeed has become a large part of the Star Frontiers experience. If you replace the art with quality images and turn the unpalatable mechanics (Column Shift Mechanic and extra skills) into mere options, and apply better editing and design, the book is easily turned into something worth using. |
 October 26, 2007 - 10:15am | Nope. Now, you have to drop at least two hats nowadays. All seriousness, the logicial paradox is another cliché to go with the whole AI machines run amok schtick. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 October 31, 2007 - 10:59am | You need to see babylon 5. They have a psicorp in action. It was kinda of ok. Put b5 into a nose dive though. I have allowed mentalists, however the full powered mentalist and psicorp officers in star frontiers was kept strictly NPC only. Only that way was the game kept enjoyable. Later, a friend begged if he could play one to see how far he could go with it. So I did and game go FLUSH. In conclusion of this, in large parties one maybe two will work, but only in a players hands that you trust, but always keep one as a npc if you use them at all. The catch to using one is the rest of the player start to become dependant on the mentalist. Just look at object read this one will get you into the "I cheat at hide and seek" feel. They are really good to scare the crap out of unruly players who have just fallen in love with their favorite charactor. Game balance is easy if you think a skill or item through from a players point of view, or have a player that is willing to help with the thing in question. Just remember if it is in question there is probly something wrong with it. I have to say though I have found some fun stuff by using the friend to test it with. It will allow you to remove uplayable stuff to tone it down. But, between you and me, my players don't have time to worry about things like that. They're to busy just staying alive. ha!ha!ha!!!!! <--evil laugh. |
 November 1, 2007 - 10:38am | For the record, I like "Landfleet" well enough. As for Zebs, it was a supplement I was really looking forward to and I bought it the day it hit the shelf. For the most part it felt like the first few chapters of an AD&D version of Alpha Dawn's D&D. Which to me meant, "Here are a bunch of optional rules that build up the game a bit. Use what you want." I mean, really, how many of you AD&D players out there ever used *every* rule? ;) And I liked the new races well enough. I mean, it's one thing to call Ifshits "gnomes" and Huma's "kangaroo's" but so what? That was in the tradition of Star Frontiers so far as I was concerned. Vrusk were "insects." Yazarian's were "monkies." And Dralasites were "blobs" that reminded me of that stupid Schmoo cartoon character when it came right down to it. I just don't get how the Alpha Dawn races can be considered superior in any way other than they were first. So they threw in a halfling/dwarf/gnome race, a reptile, intelligent robots, and marsupials. Entirely predictable. I'm just surprised there wasn't an avian, amphibian, or plant race to tell you the truth. All in all, I don't think I played SF for very long after Zebs came out and we'd only adopted a very small portion of it at the time so I hadn't really taken the resolution system through its paces. It seemed like an easy enough system, but without modules that used it, we never felt any pressure to start using it ourselves. To my mind, the reason it probably failed was because it was a system that could only have been adopted by people who created all of their own content (or who were interested in converting existing content.) It was doomed to failure, not because it was terrible, but because TSR stopped supporting SF. If the second Zebs had come out and 10 supporting modules that matched favorably to Alpha Dawn's body of work, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. As for mentalists, they had about as much chance of being used in one of our games as psionicists had a chance of being used in one of our AD&D games. People doing magical things with constipated looks on their faces just never appealed to me and my friends much. Besides, I didn't want SF to have that kind of ever-present "magic" in it. But, again, I looked at it as being totally optional. The caveat here is that for us, SF was always something we kind of played when we were on a break from AD&D. Other times, Gamma World was our alternative. So I'm fairly positive that most of the people posting in this thread have a lot more time behind the wheel when it comes to SF games and you probably have a more personal experience with how Zebs conflicted with your campaigns or threatened to send the delicate balance of the universe spinning off into complete chaos. I was a SF amateur that didn't take the game seriously enough to get too bent over the new stuff... but, I can assure you, I think I understand what you're feeling. I have very similar attitudes regarding most of AD&D 2nd and some of 3+. ;) |
 November 1, 2007 - 5:13pm | I bought ZG when it came out and I was not very happy with it. We (my game group) didn't really understand why the changes were made and just stuck to the AD/KH skills and mechanics. I still have my copy and read it periodically and use it as nothing more than a reference. I personally don't consider it canon as there are too many inconsistencies with backgrounds and time-lines. By reading the AD and KH rules, we find that the Humans came into contact with the Vrusk, who had previously come into contact with the Dralasites. They decided to meet in an open area and colonize it. There they ran into the Yazarians who were, for all intents and purposes indigenous to the Frontier. ZG changes that. If you notice, there is no time-line in AD or KH. The only real way to form one is to read through the modules and do a basic logic puzzle. After I did this (I have a copy of my thoughts all in a word doc now) I found that ZG had changed the implied time-line. This to me give the impression that the writers were changing my universe. Things were happening out of sequence and in the wrong year. Based on module SF4 the current year is 63, by my calculations (without SF4) the current year is 61 so not too bad. ZG has the year at 111 and took out the major plot-line of SWII as having been done. I know it is a tool and can be modified for my own concept, but it still bothers me that it deviates so dramatically from what was established. More to follow. "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
|
November 1, 2007 - 5:18pm | I bought ZG when it came out and I was not very happy with it. We (my game group) didn't really understand why the changes were made and just stuck to the AD/KH skills and mechanics. I still have my copy and read it periodically and use it as nothing more than a reference. I personally don't consider it canon as there are too many inconsistencies with backgrounds and time-lines. I would love to get a copy of that, if you don't mind. I am looking to make the AER material as accurate as possible to the AD history, instead of ZG.By reading the AD and KH rules, we find that the Humans came into contact with the Vrusk, who had previously come into contact with the Dralasites. They decided to meet in an open area and colonize it. There they ran into the Yazarians who were, for all intents and purposes indigenous to the Frontier. ZG changes that. If you notice, there is no time-line in AD or KH. The only real way to form one is to read through the modules and do a basic logic puzzle. After I did this (I have a copy of my thoughts all in a word doc now) I found that ZG had changed the implied time-line. This to me give the impression that the writers were changing my universe. Things were happening out of sequence and in the wrong year. Based on module SF4 the current year is 63, by my calculations (without SF4) the current year is 61 so not too bad. ZG has the year at 111 and took out the major plot-line of SWII as having been done. I know it is a tool and can be modified for my own concept, but it still bothers me that it deviates so dramatically from what was established. More to follow. |
 November 1, 2007 - 5:39pm | As for Zebs, it was a supplement I was really looking forward to and I bought it the day it hit the shelf. For the most part it felt like the first few chapters of an AD&D version of Alpha Dawn's D&D. Which to me meant, "Here are a bunch of optional rules that build up the game a bit. Use what you want." I mean, really, how many of you AD&D players out there ever used *every* rule? Well...I'm probably in the minority when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons...but I (and my original group) never cared for the complexity of the Advanced line. Granted, like you say with Zeb's...I incorporated a lot of it into my OD&D stuff (spells, character classes, monsters, and magic items...all converted over to OD&D) but played the AD&D modules according to OD&D mechanics. But once I discovered SF, it became the mainstay for me and my group. Sure, after we played the snot out of it for six months we'd try something else like Top Secret or Indiana Jones or at least blow the dust of our D&D goods. After moving out of state I soon found a new group that was mainstream D&D/AD&D, and they got hooked on SF as much as my old group was. To break the monotony, one of them purchased Traveller...but speaking of monotony that game quickly brought us back to SF every time we got it going. Alas, the AD&D reference is a good one when applied to Zeb's. Use what you want, toss the rest. |
November 1, 2007 - 7:52pm | Continuing (took wife for a walk) In AD/KH, the Yazarians lived in the Frontier, but did not originate there. So basically you have a "large" area of space that has virtually no sentient species present (the Volturnus series introduces the first new ones) and then all of a sudden there are 4 more packed along the "Rim". In the core rules the only other species mentioned is the Sathar and they don't even live in a known area of space. A point was made above about how many different species are needed in a good Sci-fi game, with an answer of zero. I agree, just look at Firefly, all Human and no odd variations with the exception of Reavers. Introduce too many species and you get too crowded, but its also very unwieldy to keep them all in character on the NPC side. As modules progress though, almost all planets have a new species unfortunately. You never see people just run into colonists that left the known planets 300 years ago and have thrived without space travel ever since. The biggest (and at times most aggravating) aspect of SF is the openness of it. I would like a little more information to go on, specifically the historical side to ease the burden on the story teller. No two people will ever create the same universe, which is both a strength and weakness of design. A game could take place entirely on one planet as there is no limit to what you can do there, especially since many are unexplored. Most people however want to get on ships and cause all kinds of trouble for the GM, but this is what players do. As I said, I like the open and creative nature of SF. What I personally would have preferred ZG to be is guidelines on things like, exactly how big a population size medium is. Is it medium in relation to the populations of the other planets or is it medium based on the size of the planet and the number of inhabitants (yes I have read some of the threads on this topic)? How many cities, or towns or settlements are on a medium planet that is industrial, or agriculture in nature (an answer of numerous or hundreds is a little cryptic)? In KH 0 we find that Clarion has 12 "great" cities and tens of millions occupying each, this is considered a high population and is one of the few canon references. Without a few more, it is hard to create easy answers that would be considered canon. To fully flesh out a SF universe would take a GM a heck of a long time and energy if it were taken right down to market price fluctuations (which has been addressed in a Frontiersman issue (yay)). I have my view of the universe and if I was in a game with another group, they would have their own view. A little more in the way of parameters would go a long way towards keeping the mechanics the same while causing new stories to emerge. ZG creates adds more stuff without really giving any answers. Anyone can make stuff (we all do), but the answers are what guide the creation and use of that stuff. That is a lot of words to say that ZG adds things but also adds nothing. "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
|
November 2, 2007 - 2:17am | The biggest (and at times most aggravating) aspect of SF is the openness of it. I would like a little more information to go on, specifically the historical side to ease the burden on the story teller. No two people will ever create the same universe, which is both a strength and weakness of design. A game could take place entirely on one planet as there is no limit to what you can do there, especially since many are unexplored. This is probably just a matter of the gaming school of thought one prescribes too. For example, I'm a pretty hardcore Greyhawk fan, and when Forgotten Realms came out my biggest criticism was that it spoon-fed too much information. I've found that for most players I've played with, less *is* more. Their imaginations will fill in most of the blanks (within reason.) So if I say "medium", they can think of whatever they want, and unless the real number is important, the game doesn't suffer for it. Other players might want a lot more, but I find that people's eyes start glazing over when you start telling them stuff they really have no intention of remembering. Most people however want to get on ships and cause all kinds of trouble for the GM, but this is what players do. I feel you on this one, I remember getting this feeling when I first started dabbling with Knight Hawks (before ZG.) But I've found that it just means if you're not comfortable creating things on the fly, then pull in the reigns some. Basically make the PC's go where you want them to go... where you're prepared to have them go... and just try and make sure they have a good time there. If they don't see the strings, they won't feel like puppets. ;) The vastness of the Frontier is and always will be nothing more than an illusion, no matter how many details you can fill in. I think Firefly did a great job with a human only universe. And likewise, Starwars does very well with its nearly unlimited menagerie of races. Though SF always seemed a little more like Star Trek to me... but it can just as easily be seen as a little bit of all of them... and certainly more one than another depending upon how the GM chooses to run things. As for the issues in ZG that were just outright wrong or inconsistent with earlier data, that's just sloppy work. But it's also nothing a 2nd printing could not have fixed. Of course, that also assumes that simply because something was printed first that it was correct. Who's to say that some of the changes or "errors" in ZG weren't actually corrections? Or maybe some of the developers were taking the opportunity to change some of the things that always kind of bugged them? Who knows? I guess for me, in the big scheme of a good game, the color of a star, name of a system, or perfection of a historical time-line just isn't all that important. |
November 2, 2007 - 7:49am | The biggest (and at times most aggravating) aspect of SF is the openness of it. I would like a little more information to go on, specifically the historical side to ease the burden on the story teller. No two people will ever create the same universe, which is both a strength and weakness of design. A game could take place entirely on one planet as there is no limit to what you can do there, especially since many are unexplored. This is probably just a matter of the gaming school of thought one prescribes too. For example, I'm a pretty hardcore Greyhawk fan, and when Forgotten Realms came out my biggest criticism was that it spoon-fed too much information. I've found that for most players I've played with, less *is* more. Their imaginations will fill in most of the blanks (within reason.) So if I say "medium", they can think of whatever they want, and unless the real number is important, the game doesn't suffer for it. Other players might want a lot more, but I find that people's eyes start glazing over when you start telling them stuff they really have no intention of remembering. Most people however want to get on ships and cause all kinds of trouble for the GM, but this is what players do. I feel you on this one, I remember getting this feeling when I first started dabbling with Knight Hawks (before ZG.) But I've found that it just means if you're not comfortable creating things on the fly, then pull in the reigns some. Basically make the PC's go where you want them to go... where you're prepared to have them go... and just try and make sure they have a good time there. If they don't see the strings, they won't feel like puppets. ;) The vastness of the Frontier is and always will be nothing more than an illusion, no matter how many details you can fill in. I think Firefly did a great job with a human only universe. And likewise, Starwars does very well with its nearly unlimited menagerie of races. Though SF always seemed a little more like Star Trek to me... but it can just as easily be seen as a little bit of all of them... and certainly more one than another depending upon how the GM chooses to run things. As for the issues in ZG that were just outright wrong or inconsistent with earlier data, that's just sloppy work. But it's also nothing a 2nd printing could not have fixed. Of course, that also assumes that simply because something was printed first that it was correct. Who's to say that some of the changes or "errors" in ZG weren't actually corrections? Or maybe some of the developers were taking the opportunity to change some of the things that always kind of bugged them? Who knows? I guess for me, in the big scheme of a good game, the color of a star, name of a system, or perfection of a historical time-line just isn't all that important. The reason I got interested in the timeline is because so many make a big fuss over it, but all their complaints can be easily explained away as I just did. I think I have a working fix on the timeline in the AER. |
November 2, 2007 - 8:44pm | Give'm a ship and they will hang themselves...... I never had problems giving a group in my games a ship, or two, or maybe four or five. Spread the fun throughout the frontier. |
November 3, 2007 - 2:28am | Give'm a ship and they will hang themselves...... I never had problems giving a group in my games a ship, or two, or maybe four or five. Spread the fun throughout the frontier. Give 'em a squadron of fighters. They'll discover just how important team work really is... |
January 1, 2008 - 2:18am | I put this into a scenario, and the results are just to hilarious to put into here. You had to be there. I used drone fighters that the players flew from the comfort of the carrier. You never heard the bad language and seen tempers fly. I had to remind them that they are still in the carrier some 200 hexes away from the ships they were attacking. |
 January 1, 2008 - 8:49am | Though SF always seemed a little more like Star Trek to me... but it can just as easily be seen as a little bit of all of them... and certainly more one than another depending upon how the GM chooses to run things. Really? I've planned on taking SF in a more Babylon 5, Lensman and Legend of Galactic Heroes kind of direction, more Babylon 5 than the others. SF just doesn't lend it's self well to huge epic fleets. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
January 1, 2008 - 1:22pm | Thus the Delta Dawn Sourcebook project. |
January 1, 2008 - 9:59pm | I have had over 40 ships in one battle and I had no difficulty tracking them all. No computers were used. |
January 2, 2008 - 12:00am | There are two ways to conduct a fleet battle: broad scale or change scale. Broad scale is what Star Frontiers (and SWRPG) does. It keeps you on one scale, but you can never get in close because two ships from opposite sides cannot occupy the same square at the same time. This poses a big problem for little ships, as I've stated. They're essentially as easy to hit as a size 20 carrier. Who wants to fly a fighter when you can fly an assault scout with the same chance to be hit but much better defenses? Thus my proposal of scale change where fighters can fly 50 meters away from an enemy hull and you can conduct each portion of the battle on different scales, just like in the Star Wars movies. Kind of hard to hit a target that whizzes by your cannons too fast to lock on. Just because your firing area can hit from one side of a Jovian planet to another in a single arc does not mean you're going to be able to hit a fighter flying 100 meters from your hull. At that close of range, you'll need much smaller, much more maneuverable weapons to hit your target, and the fighter is going to have no problem at all hitting your hull. The problem is targeting a specific system, which is precisely what a bomber is for. Big ships can pound away at each other, but fighters and bombers can pinpoint the important parts to more quickly disable a ship. Oh, but then if you introduce the fighters, then the big ships can no longer fire freely at each other unless they're up close, otherwise they'll destroy their own fighters. Either that or their fighters would have to bug out every time they plan to fire a big gun and that's just broadcasting their actions. You see, you can fight on just the large scale, but all you're doing is pounding away with brute force and very little strategy, as was indicated earlier. Only by introducing a scale on which fighters can battle can you introduce a distinct strategy. That's also why I felt it necessary to introduce three dimensional mapping. If strategy figured much into this game, we'd be seeing discussions about those strategies, but I haven't seen discussion one on any Star Frontiers boards. |
 January 2, 2008 - 7:17am | Why is the Zeb's resolution system worthless? G. |
January 2, 2008 - 2:07pm | Oh my gosh, Corjay, SF not tactical. You must be blind. The term Coordinated attack system has not reached your eyes/ears. It is easy once you get used to it. As far as explaining to you how it works will have to wait. I am up to my eyeballs in other things for this site for right now. Unless, you have good reason for me to do other wise. Furthermore, I not sure you want to know how to by the negativity in your words. |
January 2, 2008 - 6:22pm | Don't mistake my not seeing it for "negativity". Why is the Zeb's resolution system worthless? As the designers admit, it's a lateral change (regressive in my eyes). You're trading die rolling for table referencing.G. |
January 2, 2008 - 9:30pm | Don't mistake my not seeing it for "negativity". Why is the Zeb's resolution system worthless? As the designers admit, it's a lateral change (regressive in my eyes). You're trading die rolling for table referencing.G. Yes, but all that just tells me it's a different system, which I clearly know already, not why you consider the new system to be worthless. If you don't like it just because it's not the Alpha Dawn way of doing things, well, that's a matter of personal taste, not a flaw in and of the system itself. I'm not defending the Zeb's system, I'm not takining any stance, I just want to know why people consider the Zeb's system to be so flawed - beyond it not being what they are used to. G. |
January 2, 2008 - 11:50pm | Notice my note on my view of it being "regressive". I believe it takes more time. The dice rolls are standard and you can do it all by memory and therefore just takes a few seconds. Referencing the resolution tables takes a couple MORE seconds. You may be right in that it's a matter of preference, but I'd just prefer to roll and move on. Instead of roll and look up a table or two, I want to roll and then roll one more time and be done. |
 January 7, 2008 - 1:47pm | If I recall correctly: A big part of the reason for Star Frontiers to be canned (and thus Star Frontiers, Zebulon's Guide, etc.) was because of the Buck Rogers game. They didn't want to be competing with themselves. Of course Buck Rogers partially was being promoted through the company because one of the inheritors of the Buck Rogers estate was (something like the) CEO of TSR at the time. I believe "penny" was in her first or last name. There was either an ad in Dragon, or a reference in Zeb's for the 3rd edition of Zebulon's guide.....it was originally supposed to be 6 different manuals of at least the current size. If someone's really interested, I can try to dig through the old iastate.edu star frontiers list archives and see if I can find the conversations....someone on the list actually got in touch with an actual developer of the game/Zeb's and got the full story. (That full story should have confirmed or denied the Buck Rogers estate hieress conspiracy....my memory isn't that great.) roymeo |
 January 7, 2008 - 5:34pm | Hey ya Roy!! Glad to see someone else from the listserve has made it here. I recall a bit of the conversation about BR and SF, I do believe you are correct. Also there was a Dragon Mag, or RPGA magazine that made mention of the 6 ZG books. I just dont remember which one. At one time I had a Dragon mag that had an advertisement for ZG 2. Had a neet looking cover that reminded me of the artwork from Knight Hawks. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
January 7, 2008 - 5:57pm | The only "Penny" that I know of that worked at TSR in those days was Penny Petticord, now Penny Williams, who is currently my Editor in Chief at Knowledge Arcana. She most definitely didn't own TSR. I believe Lorraine Williams was the majority shareholder of TSR from 1997 on and likely made a killing by buying the Blumes stocks cheap and selling to WOTC. Gary Gygax, Brian Blume, and Kevin Blume are probably the ones who were to blame at the time you are mentioning. That period was apparently the emersion of trading card games and the cybergames explosion which TSR seemed to sidestep entirely. It was also the period of 2nd Edition AD&D, which was a bleeding cow. Also, I'm not sure how BR could be said to replace Star Frontiers, as it had a greater board game focus like Axis & Allies instead of roleplaying. Also, BR came along in 1988, three years after the release of Zeb's. They're too far apart in time and mechanics to connect in such a way. Though 5 years later (8 years after Zeb's), they released the tabletop RPG. The mechanics are nothing like Star Frontiers mechanics. So I'm not sure where the comparisons come from. |
January 7, 2008 - 7:23pm | I have had over 40 ships in one battle and I had no difficulty tracking them all. No computers were used. Well that's just it. If you're ever heard of or seen the anime series Legend of Galactic Heroes the fleets are considerably larger than 40 ships. The ships number more into the tens of thousands of ships, not realistically or practical in a SF game. But who wants to game a fleet of 10,000 ships? In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
January 7, 2008 - 7:42pm | Well, my thought is that you shouldn't have to manage or maintain 40 ships for a single side. With the use of squadrons, wings, and formations, you could manage the battle more easily. Also, if you're using chits, all it takes is one bump of the table or a simple small gust from someone sitting down or breathing wrong, and suddenly you have 30 of those 40 ships all over the map and you can no longer determine what went where. But with squadron chits and the like, you can track many fighters or large ships at once. Groups of ships or fighters should also have bonuses and penalties based on their formation that they don't get as separate ships. The same goes for ground troops. |
January 7, 2008 - 7:44pm | For that many I turn on the computer for a faster pace through the ships orders. But, yes I like big battles, however, the guys in my group don't want to keep track of that many ships. In this case, they are arranged into units/groups for a more logical order of combat. Anyway, as far as the Legend of Galactic Heroes they are just being dramatic. |
January 7, 2008 - 10:10pm | I believe Lorraine Williams was the majority shareholder of TSR (snip) Yep. that is the name I had heard and research confirms it.I know I had posted a message in the SF-listserve about a story I had heard from Rick Loomis (president of Flying Buffalo) at the time Gygax left and 2ed AD&D came out. Basically he told us that Lorraine had connections with the Buck Rogers family line, and that she was realy pushing to get a big line of BR products out there; rpg, board game, pc, and console. (Note: I have never been able to confirm if those ties to BR were real or b.s.) Loomis was at a small game convention when he told us this. Also, I'm not sure how BR could be said to replace Star
Frontiers, as it had a greater board game focus like Axis & Allies
instead of roleplaying. (snip) They're too far apart in time and mechanics to
connect in such a way. The mechanics are nothing like Star Frontiers mechanics. So I'm not sure where the comparisons come from. Well, I think the comparisons come from TSR telling us that there were going to be more SF releases, but they were on hold due to 2ed AD&D realease. Then all of a sudden here comes Buck Rogers rpg with adventures and supplements getting fired out pretty fast. Then getting word that Star Frontiers had been dropped and BR would be T$R 's sci-fi rpg. Some of us (like me) felt that SF had been giving the boot so BR could be produced. There is no comparison when it comes to BR & SF. Two different systems. Two Different games. The half dozen times I played BR, it didnt feel like SF in any way, shape, or form. It did feel like 2ed AD&D (in space).It was also the period of 2nd Edition AD&D, which was a bleeding cow. yeah. "bleeding cow" might be an understatement. F.Y.I. My copy of 2ed AD&D doesnt even mention Gygax.Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
January 7, 2008 - 9:33pm | Ah, yes. It was Lorraine, not Penny Petticord.....must remember her name from something else...possibly the personal communication that Pierre was having with her. As far as "well, BR came out 3 years after Zeb's" I wonder if you've worked in publishing before. :) From the date of the first Zeb publishing, it would take a while to create a new game, get all the licensing legal crap resolved, etc. You may not think BR and SF are similar. In fact I'd guess that's pretty much a given, since you're here. But that doesn't mean that the marketing drones don't look and say "hey, we've got too many "Science Fiction" games, which should we cut?" And if Lorriane's an inheritor/connected of the BR empire, I guess I see it as pretty hard to read any other way.... roymeo |
January 7, 2008 - 11:50pm | I think you're getting two different walk-outs by Gygax confused. Lorraine received majority control of TSR in 1997, 9 years after the release of BR. Gygax had an earlier rift with the company over some decisions and consumer-forking and parted ways for a few years, but came back when the person responsible was ousted. |
