Death to Space:1889

>> 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 think the reason that Space:1889 wasn't popular is because it's a
fantasy game in a science-fiction setting.  There's just too much
suspension of physical reality (not to mention economic and social reality)
to appeal to SF players.  And it's probably too close to reality for
the average fantasy player to enjoy.

I've read Verne and Burroughs, but that doesn't mean I think their
universes would be interesting to wander about in.  I prefer playing
in a world where things have evolved, not regressed.  For example, are
there any female characters allowed in Space:1889?  If there are, there
shouldn't be (for internal consistency) and if there aren't, probably half
the likely players have just put that game back on the shelf and picked up
the next Cyberpunk game.

I take it as a sign of the maturity of the gaming public that games like
Space:1889 die out rather than a sign of their illiteracy.

Martin Snow
[email removed]