 November 10, 2012 - 6:18am | I have not been opposed to changing the setting a little when its called for- Earth exists for me, its just cut off from the Frontier and not in contact. Also mytime line project tackled a lot of continuity issues. However, I strove to make the changes that I made Zero Sum- in that the Frontier was still materially the same despite the change or to put it another way the change was in story not in number of space stations or militia ships or the colonist of a planet. I was considering some material changes for the Venture in Diplomacy thread: a new jump route and a new trade station. I had advocated Zero Sum Change as a way of fixing problems and embellishing the story but not actually changing the canon setting so that when we discussed the canon setting we were all on the same page so that in the middle of a discussion someone didn't say, "Wait, Athor doen't have a trade station, what are you talking about?" So the question is as we all go forward with modlue writing and publishing them in the various fan magazines are there sacred cows that should not be touched in the setting? Can the setting be materailly changed in these modules? Will material changes be accepted by the community? Should something like Zero Sum change be the gold standard? Meaning change is ok but as long as it is not matterial or radil change. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 10, 2012 - 7:34am | Good questions. As I've been reading all of the canon materiel and fan materiel this past year, I'm struck by how lacking in continuity the original stuff is. Then reading the Zeb cook article put it all together for me. It seems as though some of us care more about it than the original creators did. That said, I kind of like the approach of creating a location and/or scenario, fleshing out the main ingredients, and offering a token solution for use if the materiel goes too far for a user. Also, I have considered the zero sum change approach to be pretty effective approach. All that said, I'd have to say the only sacred cows I have are in the flavor of the setting. No warp drive, death stars, etc. Nothing too far of a departure from the original setting materiel. That's a big reason why I don't like most of the stuff from Zebs. It's too big of a change to the setting for my taste. I like the Rim races, but I would want to see tech develop in a more linear fashion from the original setting materiel. One caveat there is that I think that previously unknown races should have at least a shot at developing tech along different lines than the UPF, and this could be a realistic source of tech advancement. For example, in my setting I'm using the Mechanon and the Eorna as the source for the pod laser and pod laser turret. I'm also considering having them be the source of some secondary crystalline technology that will be able to boost the efficiency of atomic drives so they don't require overhauls as frequently. The introduction of the Rim races and the UPF/RIM treaties will be around the Rim Coalition sharing the technology of the space ladder with the UPF. They'll build the first one on Cassidine as a gift (but the crafty Ifshnit make the UPF *pay* for it) and ensure that no corporation has the patent rights to it so that it can be shared with the UPF without boosting one of their competitors. |
 November 10, 2012 - 8:20am | I feel like OnceFarOff, the sacred cows are in the flavor of the setting. Introducing a lightsaber would change the flavor, upgrading the sonic sword to give it color by projecting a hologram of a blade would not as both are already in the setting, sonic sword and holograms. They are still going to not be able to block each others blows. Adding the detail of building a new space station and establishing a new jump route are fitting for a module. -iggy |
November 10, 2012 - 9:46am | I feel like OnceFarOff, the sacred cows are in the flavor of the setting. Introducing a lightsaber would change the flavor, upgrading the sonic sword to give it color by projecting a hologram of a blade would not as both are already in the setting, sonic sword and holograms. They are still going to not be able to block each others blows.
I suppose adding new matterial changes in a module only really matters on the end user end. If you dont like it dont play the module. I feel pretty strong about zero sum as it ensures we're all talking the same language in forums and such. Its not so much a veneration of the canon as an appreciation that we're all spread across the world and come to this table and speak the same language as it were concerning the setting so zero sum change in theory allows for change and ensures the greatest level of acceptance for that change. I am possing the question though to understand what the general feeling is in the community. Adding the detail of building a new space station and establishing a new jump route are fitting for a module. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
November 10, 2012 - 10:21am | I suppose adding new matterial changes in a module only really matters on the end user end. If you dont like it dont play the module. I feel pretty strong about zero sum as it ensures we're all talking the same language in forums and such. Its not so much a veneration of the canon as an appreciation that we're all spread across the world and come to this table and speak the same language as it were concerning the setting so zero sum change in theory allows for change and ensures the greatest level of acceptance for that change. I am possing the question though to understand what the general feeling is in the community. You make a good point there. I hadn't thought of it that way. Yet again, I would say that pioneering materiel might have a thumbnail sketch of a 'plan b' use for it. This was done to some extent in the original modules when a workaround for players who hadn't played an entire series of modules might get into the action in the middle. I think that provided the materiel isn't dependant on some uber advanced tech or such it should be pretty easy to change the method of entry into a scenario. |
 November 10, 2012 - 2:34pm | Let me try this. There are some things in a setting in which when you change them it no only distracts from the setting it can completely ruin it. Taking the movie Eragon (the one about the dragon hatching) for a good example. The director decided that the Elf characters did not need to have pointed ears or be tall and lithe. This lead to a great deal of confusion as to who was who in the rebel group and greatly hurt the movie. Anyone hear of a sequel being made? If you read most of the canon modules they only use a few key elements of the setting and then go off on their own. Most of them taking place in settings not writen of in the original material. If you are going to write "generic" modules than you have to stick to the canon material. If you change somethings than it needs to be presented up front. Take zombies for an example. Are they fast or slow? Are they dead or alive. Are they capable of using any type of tools? Is it a world wide epidemic or just a local thing? While everyone knows what zombies are if these things are not set out early in the setting or worse changed without reason you quickly lose your audience. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 November 21, 2012 - 5:46am | The idea of canon is something I've thought about quite a bit. |
November 21, 2012 - 7:22am | Well stated Bossmoss, I've long had the feeling that even the most ardent hater of Zebs is not adverse to using a piece of equipment from it, a mega corp from it or even a cadre from it. The column shift mechanic is gone the way of the dodo, the cumbersome skill system seemed like a good alternative to AD's skill system when it came out but has not had the staying power and with the SF2000 skill system out there, which is even more cumbersome I just dont see many people using them so mechanic wise you can pretty much discount the "rules" from Zebs Guide. That leaves the setting material. Now that I better understand Kim Eastland's vision for ZG I can recognize that the miss-alignments in the timeline are not from TSR being stupid but rather a game designer deciding to go in a whole new direction that was never realized due to the game being killed by the CEO. I wonder what might have happened if Eastland had been allowed to complete his 14 Volumes of ZG and make the Frontier a Shadowrun punkified Star Wars like setting if the face of the SF community would be the same today? If there had never been a Buck Rogers and we were in a 3rd edition of SF what would this community look like? We may never know but its certain it would be different. Back to topic: Equipment? if properly converted to AD style mechanic I see no problem with it and welcome that though the multiplicity of weapons and defensive that can come about seems cumbersome to me and I'd prefer to just introduce the rafflurs and is defenses and limit some of the other new weapon tech. I go back and forth on the body comps though and perfer to unify the scanners into a Tri-scanner much like Spocks Tri-corder for simplicity. Cadres, Cults and Criminal Organizations (& mega corps): who wouldn't want these at their disposal? They provide a foil for the PCs to go against especially if you are tired of the sathar as a foil. Referee tool kit sort of material. Details on Corporate wars (ICEWARS) - good stuff for the Referee's tool kit Planetary Footnotes and the Star system table- it should be noted that the planetary footnotes in ZG are all for planets in the UPF, not one of them is for a Rim Planet. The star system table for the UPF side does have a few bits of conflicting data with the AD star system table like Laco's population level but that was something I tried to address in my recent Laco brief (Frontier Explorer #2) I don't see a problem with the expansion of the star system table at least for the UPF side of things. Mechanons are not a new race but a new treatment of an old race and I think the new material on them makes them interesting and adds for interesting story telling with them so why not? Now we come to the New races and the Rim. The are some Rim haters out there, and I say thats cool just dont use the new material for the Rim and its 3 races. One problem I do have with the Rim is the close concentration of 3 star systems with 3 sapient races all evolving to the point of space flight at about the same time? Odds are thin for that happening. However, i feel that with rehab of the Zebs races as whats gone on in the Zebs Guide project I feel we might as well let this material in right along with every thing else we've taken in from Zebs and anyone who just doesn't like it can exclude the Rim and its races from his game- which is easily enough to do. That brings us to the final point which is the timeline- its a mess because Eastland admits to essentially trashing any timeline that went before. However, we have endorsed things above that have points in the timeline so its hard to just chuck the timeline. I think with great care a restructured timeline can be introduced that fixes the timeline problems- it will have all the authority of any other fan offering but it could be something that works well enough for a large number of us until something better or more authoritative comes along. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
November 21, 2012 - 5:13pm | Going off the cuff I find one problem with the Zebs guide is the lack of new planets. Yes there are more planets in the expanded map but it seems our core four races gave up exploring and settling new worlds and just let the mega-corps take over. Maybe the emphasis on the mega-corps was intentional but where are the new human, dralasite, vrusk or yazirian planets? Or better yet where are the cooperatively settled worlds? I have a revamp in the works for my own use. One thing is I have dropped the Zeb three and turned their planets over to other races so everyone can have a homeworlds except of course the yazirains, saurians, vimh and zethra Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
November 22, 2012 - 5:08am | Rattraveller's comments get at a problem indemic to the TSR model from that time: just put any major maps on the inside of the module cover or simply fill up one page in the book - hence the crappy design of the Serrena Dawn, the caves in Crash on Volturnus being a retangular gauntlet and many other dungeons being a retangle. The sector of space is cramped and doesnt allow for much exploration. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 22, 2012 - 12:05pm | Going off the cuff I find one problem with the Zebs guide is the lack of new planets. Yes there are more planets in the expanded map but it seems our core four races gave up exploring and settling new worlds and just let the mega-corps take over. Maybe the emphasis on the mega-corps was intentional but where are the new human, dralasite, vrusk or yazirian planets? Or better yet where are the cooperatively settled worlds? And don't forget the quarantined worlds, which was handled poorly - the Blue Plague came, and after cure was found, the planets remained quarantined. The only thing I can make of the event, was to 'cull the herd' so to speak, to prevent general expansion to new systems do to overpopulation, and to full-out the map, without adding a lot of added details. I hear people using the Blue Plague, as it makes a good plot/backstory, but the Plague Worlds becomes more of a gray area. (e.g. They might ignore the latin-coded worlds, and just have most of the heavily populated, established worlds quarantined for the duration of the epidemic.) |
November 22, 2012 - 6:06pm | I think in light of Kim Eastland stating that he intended to take SF in a Gamma World direction I think we can just drop the plague worlds with the greek letters, unless of course you're going in a Gamma World direction. Simply have the plague aflict the named worlds like Clarion that were listed in the time line i think and be done with it. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
November 22, 2012 - 7:07pm | The thing I find really weird about the Blue Plague worlds is the code names. Why? They were populated worlds which had a plague and were then quarantined. So what's with the code names? Why are their real names not used? I would just have to take the plague but give some background to the worlds and what happened. Thinking a better reason for the quarantine and what might actually be found on the plague worlds. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
November 23, 2012 - 9:23am | I agree with rattraveller - why not keep the original names? I think it was just a quick, cheap way to fill out the map, as Malcadon said, without having to take the time to actually develop anything new. I remember being mad when it first came out - I felt like I had been robbed. "Who says I can't use those planets?" It made me that much more determined to develop those systems. Regarding the Rim species, I did not have them all develop spaceflight at the same time. I had the Osakar discover interstellar spaceflight first. The Ifshnits had already been colonizing their own solar system, but had not reached any other stars. Because they are both basically easy-going species, the Osakar and Ifshnits got along fine, and developed a great deal of technology together. They discovered the Humma later, after they'd been exploring for a bit. The reason I did that is that I could not justify having Humma discover the others first - they would have just conquered them. At least that's my perspective on it. |
November 23, 2012 - 1:54pm | Regarding the Rim species, I did not have them all develop spaceflight at the same time. I had the Osakar discover interstellar spaceflight first. The Ifshnits had already been colonizing their own solar system, but had not reached any other stars. Because they are both basically easy-going species, the Osakar and Ifshnits got along fine, and developed a great deal of technology together. They discovered the Humma later, after they'd been exploring for a bit. The reason I did that is that I could not justify having Humma discover the others first - they would have just conquered them. At least that's my perspective on it. Agreed. The humma would be agressors if they had gone first. Also, the constant internal conflict would probably serve to divert resources from a large project, giving an edge to the more cooperative species. |
November 23, 2012 - 3:29pm | Couple of canon statements on the Rim 1) humma have fought interspecies wars -its plural so i interpret it as more than one and wrote a brief dust up with the ifshnit in the Rim timeline project. 2) there are statements about the CFM being noted explorers so i took that to mean they discovered the Osakar just as osakar were gaining space flight. But otherwise i agree with both of you in essence. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
November 23, 2012 - 3:53pm | Couple of canon statements on the Rim 1) humma have fought interspecies wars -its plural so i interpret it as more than one and wrote a brief dust up with the ifshnit in the Rim timeline project. 2) there are statements about the CFM being noted explorers so i took that to mean they discovered the Osakar just as osakar were gaining space flight. But otherwise i agree with both of you in essence. I use your Rim timeline in my campaign. I like the continity of it. I totally figure the Humma to attack if they were encountered by another species. |
