posted
IC: I'm sorry if you get the impression you have to defend yourself or the LUG book. I think those who don't like the LUG designs are just glad they are not canon and *need not* be included in an official ship list. On the other hand, you do present them on your website and you have arguments for it. We seem to have different ideas about it, what's wrong about it? You must take into account there can be objections. I only have to mention words like "BoP", "Defiant" or "Niagara", and there will be a fierce discussion about it
What I tried to suggest is that the people at the forum could put their talents together and conceive some consistent designs for the ships in question. No one demands you have to remove the LUG ships from your site. Suum cuique (hard to translate, sorry).
"What are we doing here? You seem to be restating my philosphy of Trek being a subjective experience with everyone being able to define their own 'canon'."
I think we don't have to state this explicitly, since we are arguing like this the whole time.
If I look back upward in this thread, our discussion seems to date back to an initial misunderstanding. This was when you said you "would use" certain ships and you meant the RPG, and I replied "we are not supposed to use" the ships and I meant a personal ship list or ship designs developed in the forum.
posted
Honestly Steve...I think the rest of the book is well written, but every time LUG does anything on starships...it seems they fall flat on their faces. I do know about Engage! and am looking forward to seeing how they address (or don't address) some of the failures that exist in the RPG starship combat system. In defense of LUG...in the Neutral Zone book...there is a really nice top view of a D'Deridex.
NeghVar
------------------ Spoken in Klingon, with a distinct Scottish accent: "If it's not Klingon...It's crap!"
posted
I'm defending the LUG ships because I think the criticism here has been too harsh. I have an unfortuante habit of siding with the underdog.
When I said I would use them, I wasn't referring to the RPG. I have a plan for an RPG campaign but it's unlikley to get off the ground. If it did it would probably feature only a few Starfleet ships.
I was referring to my vague, nebulous, mental list of what I think looks like what. My web site reflects only a tiny fraction of what I actually think and feel about Trek ships.
Well, I have received a few request from vistors of my website to use my material for their sim groups, which is not a entirely what you mean by RPG, but given a possiblity that if I continue to add more to the site and don't burn out on it in two years, and someone with money thinks it would be worth an investment to sell the idea into the RPG world, and if we choose to look at it from a up-start point of view, then I've already begun to build a RPG a year prior to this post.
On the pratical, reality hand, I don't have the money or time to create something like a RPG. I don't even play RPGs, never have, and I don't do sim groups either, so I guess, what I'm really saying is even though my website could be the foundation for a RPG, I don't care enough about RPGs to develop the page beyond what it is.
The LUG ship drawings critiques have been too harsh? Well I suppose a group of nine year olds would think they are great. But my (and a lot of other peoples') standards of excellence are higher. I haven't drawn anything that bad since 1991.
------------------ I'm the only one who understands me, and I ire of my company. --Paul Cargile
posted
Steve: So if we were talking about the same thing (ship lists), where was actually the misunderstanding? *still pondering*
Cargile: Some of the old pencil drawings from the beginning of the 90's you recently posted (4 designs and Defiant-predecessors(?) on one page) were really great.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
