Quote:
Originally Posted by simonmark6
1) I'd like to thank Chico and the DC working group for their work and dedication to the game. Their ideas are thought-provoking and interesting and I have enjoyed reading them.
|
Please understand, I consider myself a fan of the DC Working Group's work and I have enormous respect for the individual members. I know I have a big post count here but members who have been here from the start will know that there are many threads which I never make a comment on because they don't interest me or I don't feel I have a contribution to make to the discussion. I wouldn't be commenting in this thread if I didn't care about its contents.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by simonmark6
2) Instead of comparing their work to canon, why not read it as one group's take on what might have happened, an alternative history for the alternative history if you will. It certainly doesn't fit with my view of the Twilight Universe (should we start saying IMTU?), but if it makes for a good game for anyone, who cares?
|
It is because the DC Working Group generally sticks to canon (and often flesh out canon in areas that was sparce) that I love their work. The increased numbers of USN ships that have been posited are the only thing that I've found discomfort with in their work so far.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by simonmark6
3) We can argue logistics and semantics all day and bring up whatever figures we like, but no one is going to convince the other that they ae wrong and that's because both sides are right. We are debating a speculative timeline to speculative fiction, it's more nebulous than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
|
The DC Working Group has requested feedback many times. I don't think my comments on their work have been disrespectful or even unduly negative. Most of my comments about their work have been effusively positive.