 June 14, 2010 - 5:42pm | A recent SF discussion over at the Dragonsfoot forums (classic D&D group) yielded a poster who claimed that despite the originality, did not care for the aliens. "Humans-only" sprouted up from there as a result of various human-only D&D games. So how would you rewrite the game for humans-only? |
July 21, 2010 - 2:35pm | I strongly suggest reading Battlefield Earth and skipping the movie. Well, I should have known better. Travolta is a good actor but he has never played a good villain (I don't count Pulp Fiction, he was an anti-hero and not a villain...as such you were rooting for him). Face Off, Broken Arrow, and then Battlefield Earth. Any surprise the Tom Jane "Punisher" movie was such a let down? I suppose it's difficult to shake the Grease/Saturday Night Fever imagery but he just doesn't portray a convincing bad guy. On that note "From Paris with Love" was a decent flick, but again he wasn't the villain either. He does "bad boy" alright, just not bad guy... In the end, you can have the best story and best film crew but the wrong actor portraying the bad guy can blow it. Case in point: the Nicholson/Keaton Batman. Stick anyone else into the role of the Joker and it would have sucked, Keaton wasn't the most convincing Batman but the Joker pulled the movie through. Same can be said about the recent Superman and Dark Knight flicks, I didn't expect Kevin Spacey to pull off a Lex Luthor but he did an amazing job, and well...Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was simply awesome. Neither of those flicks would have stood well in the box office with alternates in the villain roles, like say...Nicolas "auditioning for every superhero movie ever" Cage (yeah, Ghost Rider was a disappointment, but I went in with low expectations so I wasn't overly disappointed LOL). Even Michael Rosenbaum (sp?) pulled off an excellent young Lex Luthor in Smallville, note how season 8 tanked after Rosenbaum was pulled from the cast after seven strong years. |
 July 21, 2010 - 4:11pm | All this talk of 2001 and not one mention of the monkeys! I have seen the movie several times, but I think it took my wife 5 tries to get past the monkeys, she just didn't get it. Maybe those monkeys evolved into Yaz instead of Humans... At any rate, a human only Frontier would not be a bad idea for people who are just getting into gaming and have a tough time with the idea of aliens or really like Firefly. Even just as something different for people who have been playing for many years. Or as stated above, it could be played as the early days before the races even met and slowly progress to include the other 3 races. "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
|
 July 21, 2010 - 8:09pm | All this talk of 2001 and not one mention of the monkeys! I have seen the movie several times, but I think it took my wife 5 tries to get past the monkeys, she just didn't get it. Maybe those monkeys evolved into Yaz instead of Humans...
That was another thread  At any rate, a human only Frontier would not be a bad idea for people who are just getting into gaming and have a tough time with the idea of aliens or really like Firefly. Even just as something different for people who have been playing for many years. Or as stated above, it could be played as the early days before the races even met and slowly progress to include the other 3 races. I would also say that humans only works for gaming with your kids as the concept of aliens can be tough to explain to young kids I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 July 23, 2010 - 6:26pm | It's my opinion you need to see 2010 just to explain 2001, more happens in 2010. And I've heard that Clarke wasn't happy with that drug trip ending Kubrick gave 2001, I mean what the hell? Brightly colored land scapes flows to Bowman seeing his older self drop silver ware on the floor and he ponders it? I don't see what makes people think Kubrick was such a great director. But 2010 fills in a lot of the missing things. Seems Clarke was writing the book as Kubrick was starting to film it. "My God, It's full of stars." If you can get through 2001, and I know it's a tough film to watch. Watch 2010, or maybe watch 2010 and go right to the answer. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 August 2, 2010 - 1:02pm | (No comment on the hijackerous movie stuff.) It's pretty much the same SF game without the other three Races, just a lot more boring, if you ask me. You could probably substitute Humans for every single NPC in the modules except for possibly the Sathar - and then you could replace them with some really eeeeevil Humans. I don't really see the benefit though. How about an all Vrusk setting? Or Yazirian? Pretty much the same effect, I guess... |
 August 2, 2010 - 1:58pm | How about an all robot setting? No matter. It will be one day. It will be. ---> The only way I'd do an all human setting is for introducing new people to a setting/game system. Then I'd introduce the races. I guess... |
 August 18, 2010 - 8:56pm | For me the most appealing aspect of humans only (humans mostly) is to get players in at a very early point in the time line. It could either be used to allow players the chance to be a bit more epic or to experience a more intense game environment regarding first contact situations. Of course, it would be more successful with new players than you old hands who know more about Star Frontiers than the original writers do. |
