Various Replies
In reply to #5787 Re: 1889? by Bertil Jonell
Replies:
- #5811 Space:1889 by Robert S. Dean
- #5813 Re: Space:1889 by Colin Roald
Bertil Jonell [email removed] writes: > Dane Johnson writes: > > Well, I've managed to unearth a copy of Space:1889 at a gaming store in > > San Jose, and I have to say I like the idea. It's simple to use and seems > > to have a lot of potential. Any thoughts on why it never caught on? > One theory that I have heard is that the rules and the background were > incompatible in that they attracted different segments of the gaming community > The victorian background attracted the serious role players but the > simplistic rules were more targetted toward beginners. Nah, I don't buy that argument. How about this one: Space:1889 only appeals to gamers who actually read (and enjoyed reading) the source material: Jules Verne, Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Rice Burroughs. The rest just don't understand it. And most of the current generation of role-players, born around when Star Wars came out give or take a few years, just haven't done the reading, either because they don't read much, or because they aren't interested. I have noticed an accellerating trend. Everyone, even science-fiction fans and role-players, seems to be doing less reading and more watching of movies (on videotape, actually) and television. And this is reflected in our games. > > Are there any other enthusiasts out there? > The only 1889 fan I know about is Ed 'Elminster' Greenwood:) > (He claimed as much during Gothcon 12 at least) I like Space:1889. A lot. I know one other person who does. I own a lot of role-playing games. Some of them I've never played. Some that I never will play. Space:1889 is my favorite role-playing game that I've never played and never will play. It is the only game in this category that I continue to spend money on. *However*, I typically don't buy "new" stuff for Space:1889. I buy "used" stuff from Crazy Igor, or stuff I find in the bins down at Wargamers' Depot. There are two reasons. Originally, I did this because I had just gotten burned (again) with the MegaTraveller rules, and I didn't trust GDW to produce something worth spending serious money on. Currently, because I don't expect to ever be able to play the game, I can't justify spending lots of money on it. [email removed] (Chuck Hamilton) writes: > I'm working on a framework for technology developments in Traveller (and > SF games in general). First, I'm trying to come up with the general > categories available for advancement with tech level. The company I work for manages databases for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Anyway, we have a classification for academic disciplines that is used by the NSF. I've listed it below (it has broad categories and "details"; it's not perfect, but all of the different parts of NSF can at least agree on it. All of the disciplines also have an "other" detail. One other thing: it's weak in the medical area, because NSF doesn't do much medical research (that's NIH's mission). Sciences and Engineering: Engineering Aerospace, Electrical, Chemical, Civil, Mechanical, Materials, Industrial Physical Sciences Astronomy, Chemistry, Physics Envronmental Sciences Atmospheric, Earth/Geological, Oceanography Mathematics Computer Science Life Sciences Biological, Medical/Health, Agricultural Psychology Social Sciences Economics, Political, Sociology, Anthropology, Linguistics, History of Science, Area/Ethnic Studies Technologies Science, Engineering, Health Other Science or Interdisciplinary Sciences Non-Sciences: Humanities History, English/Literature, Foreign Languages Religion and Theology Arts and Music Architecture and Environmental Design Education Science, Math, Social Science, Other Science, Non-Science Business Librarianship and Communication Law Social Service Vocational Studies Other Non-Sciences Anyway, I hope that helps! [email removed] - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Science-Fiction Adventure in the New Era