Space:1889

I think that Space:1889 is a little bit out of our charter, but what the
heck.  Obligatory Traveller content: I saw Frank Chadwick at Historicon
this weekend, and there is no truth to the rumor that the Space:1889
design sequence material will be included in "Fire, Fusion and Steel",
the current title for the Technical Architecture project.

Colin Roald [email removed] writes:

> btw, I don't think I've met a serious role-player who would be dissuaded
> by simple rules.  Broken rules, sure, but simple rules only turn off the
> wargamers.

Actually, Space:1889 is the only role-playing game to be covered favorably
in the very anti-fantasy pages of MWAN (The Midwest Wargamer's Association
Newsletter).  This was very much a wargamer's set of rules, with no fewer
than two sets of miniatures rules (both usable in a strict historical
sense as well) being written to expnad the coverage of the background.

[email removed] (Derek Wildstar) writes:

> 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 that I agree with you there.  I find it unlikely that anyone who
doesn't enjoy the above (and maybe H.G. Wells and H. Rider Haggard too)
is going to be very interested in Space:1889.  That automatically limits
its appeal to a fairly small niche market, which is probably why it wasn't
a success in the marketing sense.

> 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.

How so?  Care to explain it a little more?

[email removed] (Martin Snow)

> 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.

Like Wildstar says, you have to read and enjoy reading that 19th and early
20th century stuff for a game like Space:1889 to be interesting.  However,
I don't understand your comments about evolution.  It sounds to me like you
are suggesting that this is a gneral attitude, rather than one that you
hold personally, and given that the general player seems to be into Shadowrun
sorts of games representing more pleasant, evolved societies than the
Victorian era.  Besides, the comments about female characters lead me
to believe that you have not read the rules very carefully.  There is a
substantial section on female characters, with historical examples to back
it up.  Some careers are restricted to males, but a female character can
even join those by successful use of disguise (!). The female only career
of "Adventuress" is one of the best careers in the game, in terms of
skills and fringe benefits.  I don't think that female players would be
offended by this treatment, unless they really want to apply (current)
20th century sensibilites everywhere regardless of appropriateness.  My wife
is certainly willing to play...

(Side note: Space:1889 is hardly the only historically-based game to
treat male and female characters differently.  I draw your attention to
Lace and Steel, Flashing Blades, and a number of historical GURPS
supplements to begin with...)

> 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.

Sounds like flame bait to me!  Care to elaborate a bit?

Rob Dean
(A living fossil of gaming)