GURPS Alpha Centauri

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 5, 2001, 7:36:10 PM3/5/01

to

I wonder whether they'll keep those impossibly dorky city names for the
Peacekeepers and Morgan.

Jon F. Zeigler

unread,

Mar 6, 2001, 12:47:39 AM3/6/01

to

>I wonder whether they'll keep those impossibly dorky city names for the
>Peacekeepers and Morgan.

<* chuckle *>. No.

I'm having a hard enough time cramming this setting into 128 pages
without trying to include minutiae. I judge that the canonical base
names wouldn't add that much to the role-playing experience.

----------
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, amateur historian, science fiction fan,
freelance writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry
JFZe...@aol.com
"Never speak for others. You can get in enough trouble speaking for yourself."

Lizard

unread,

Mar 10, 2001, 11:06:53 AM3/10/01

to

On 06 Mar 2001 05:47:39 GMT, jfze...@aol.com (Jon F. Zeigler) wrote:

>>I wonder whether they'll keep those impossibly dorky city names for the
>>Peacekeepers and Morgan.
>
><* chuckle *>. No.
>
>I'm having a hard enough time cramming this setting into 128 pages
>without trying to include minutiae. I judge that the canonical base
>names wouldn't add that much to the role-playing experience.
>
>

Hrm. As a fan of GURPS and AC, I somewhat disagree. I would like to
see, in the Appendix, at least, perhaps 10 'base names' for each
faction. I feel it *would* add significant flavor.

What I'm most curious about is the fact you're creating a totally new
'tech level system' for GURPS...or so it would seem.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com

Jon F. Zeigler

unread,

Mar 11, 2001, 1:31:03 AM3/11/01

to

>Hrm. As a fan of GURPS and AC, I somewhat disagree. I would like to
>see, in the Appendix, at least, perhaps 10 'base names' for each
>faction. I feel it *would* add significant flavor.

We'll see. It's low on my list of priorities.

>What I'm most curious about is the fact you're creating a totally new
>'tech level system' for GURPS...or so it would seem.

Not totally new. I was rather surprised at how well the tech tree
fit into the "standard" GURPS TL system, if you squint a little
and allow for a few exceptions. The trick is actually going to be
presenting players with enough "gear" -- while staying compatible
with all the existing GURPS gadgets books (you know, the David
Pulver library) -- all while not requiring players to actually *own*
all those books in order to play. The jury is still out on how I'm
going to get all that to work smoothly.

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 11, 2001, 9:09:38 PM3/11/01

to

Lizard wrote:

> On 06 Mar 2001 05:47:39 GMT, jfze...@aol.com (Jon F. Zeigler) wrote:
>
> >>I wonder whether they'll keep those impossibly dorky city names for the
> >>Peacekeepers and Morgan.
> >
> ><* chuckle *>. No.
> >
> >I'm having a hard enough time cramming this setting into 128 pages
> >without trying to include minutiae. I judge that the canonical base
> >names wouldn't add that much to the role-playing experience.
> >
> >
> Hrm. As a fan of GURPS and AC, I somewhat disagree. I would like to
> see, in the Appendix, at least, perhaps 10 'base names' for each
> faction. I feel it *would* add significant flavor.

Bah. Who would really name their town U.N. Commerce Committee?
Morgan Pharmaceuticals is almost as bad.