What is "canon"?

[Legbreaker]

It seems that my position on this has not been sufficently explained in a manner that all can understand.

Canon, as defined by Dictionary.com is as follows (ignoring religious references):

3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
5. a standard; criterion.
7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
9. the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic.

In other words, the published material - books, Challenge magazines, etc, are the foundation on which everything else is built. These materials are the cornerstone of the T2K universe - change what's in the books, particularly with regard to history, and it's no longer canon T2K.

HOWEVER, just because something isn't covered in canon, doesn't mean it should not be used. Canon, as stated, is a base, a starting point. Adding additional detail is not only allowable, but vital!

All I am saying is that the GDW materials must be referred to and expanded upon, not changed wholesale and the result labelled "canon" when clearly it is not.

Everyone is, has been and always will be free to do whatever they wish, as long as their ideas either as individuals or groups is not asserted to be canon.

We now have three seperate canon timelines. Surely we already have enough variety to give everyone what they need to play the game

[ChalkLine]

Question: What is "canon"

Answer: Something that shoots "shels"

[Mohoender]

Leg I appreciate several of your observations (and I'm not being sarcastic) but here you start to look a bit like ancient knight on a kind of quest he feels he is the only one to understand or may be like Don Quixote de la Mancha (No insult but may be some teasing. Don't take me wrong). Just to put it as the French would say: "Vous ates plus royaliste que le Roi" (You are getting more royalist than the king himself).

It seems that my position on this has not been sufficently explained in a manner that all can understand.

You have make your point pretty clear and somewhat in quite rude way which in my opinion doesn't help your point. Point which is perfectly legitimate to begin with but now can you calm down on it.

In other words, the published material - books, Challenge magazines, etc, are the foundation on which everything else is built. These materials are the cornerstone of the T2K universe - change what's in the books, particularly with regard to history, and it's no longer canon T2K.

Obvious, you have been hitting at an open door.

HOWEVER, just because something isn't covered in canon, doesn't mean it should not be used. Canon, as stated, is a base, a starting point. Adding additional detail is not only allowable, but vital!

For me that position of yours has been clear but understand that the way you put things could have been felt in a wrong way by some.

All I am saying is that the GDW materials must be referred to and expanded upon, not changed wholesale and the result labelled "canon" when clearly it is not.

Obvious again. By the way it is refered to all the time on this forum and if someone forget to refer to it once in a while, Big deal!

Everyone is, has been and always will be free to do whatever they wish, as long as their ideas either as individuals or groups is not asserted to be canon.

Again this is obvious.

We now have three seperate canon timelines. Surely we already have enough variety to give everyone what they need to play the game

Sorry you are wrong. We Have two not three. I imagine that the third one you are referring to is T2013 and I won't follow you on that one. This is not T2K canon it is simply an entirely new game reworking the initial idea (therefore following your own definition of canon, it's a new canon). They have put up something different, they have written it in different manner as well, they have made a new set of rules. I'm not saying it's bad (for my part its great and I personnaly grant full respect to Smokewolf and Tegyrius for that). I even bought it but will probably never use it. For my part, it comes too late and I grew too old to learn new RPG rules. The same happened with Star Wars. They are free to do as they please, I'm free not to buy it.

Now that this is said. Canon is ever present weither we say it or not. Without the original T2K team we would not be having these exchanges and they have put some amazing work. Even the weakest of their products is an amazing work (that point is as good for the T2013 team). Trust me on that. I'm writing books and published a RPG of my own, I perfectly know how hard it is and sometimes unrewarding. When you write a novel you are recognized as an author (talented or not). When writing a RPG your are at the same time graphist, novelist, game designer... (all well recognized artistic professions) but you are more hardly recognized as an artist.

Please don't take this as an attack but honestly you are tiring me (and what I'm saying is only me). To put it in a rudest way: "Lache nous la grappe".

[Legbreaker]

We Have two not three. I imagine that the third one you are referring to is T2013 and I won't follow you on that one. This is not T2K canon it is simply an entirely new game reworking the initial idea (therefore following your own definition of canon, it's a new canon).

Personally I agree with you on this point, however many (particularly the designers of T2013) may disagree so I included it.

Please don't take this as an attack...

I most certainly do NOT take it as an attack. I welcome feedback otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to state my position once more as clearly as I could.

My arguement is simply that the GDW works have been published and cannot be changed. If somebody disagrees with the GDW works, then by all means change it to suit, publish and discuss the changes, but don't try to claim individual (or group) perspectives as "the way it must be".

I myself use work done by many which is definately not canon in the strictest sense. I pick and choose a bit here and a bit there, but always use the GDW works as a base. This is how I believe all historical or alternate history RPGs should be approached. Change the base, canon work too much and you've completely changed the whole feel.

It's a bit like time travel. If one person was to travel back and assasinate say General Montgomery in 1941, the course of WWII might have been significantly different. And if that was different, the world we live in today is sure to be significantly altered.

[Mohoender]

I most certainly do NOT take it as an attack. I welcome feedback otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to state my position once more as clearly as I could.

I expected that. By the way thanks for making this thread. IMO it's a much better way to defend your point.

[Mohoender]

It's a bit like time travel. If one person was to travel back and assasinate say General Montgomery in 1941, the course of WWII might have been significantly different. And if that was different, the world we live in today is sure to be significantly altered.

Tempting. I know the British are praising Monty but I personally don't. He had done a great job in the desert but his late political maneuver needlesly costed the life of many (IMO). The poor lads at Arnhem to end with. I definetely am a fan of the movie "A bridge too far".

For my part, I prefer commanders such as Auchinleck, Wavell, Wingate...

[ChalkLine]

I, however, am not a fan of Cornelius Ryan, who among other things is a liar and someone who quotes out of context.

Ryan manages to saddle one man entirely with the whole debacle, but strangely avoids praising the same guy for the D-Day landings . . .

[Legbreaker]

I agree - great movie, but the operation was a bit a gamble right from the beginning. Vital intelligence was ignored (such as the existance of two SS Divisions in the Arnhem area) and some units on both sides performed better (or worse as the case may be) than others.
It was however worth trying, but perhaps with a slightly shorter aim of say Nijmegen, and followed up later with another push. Of course that last few miles between Nijmegen and Arnhem isn't exactly what one would like to have to attack a defending enemy across....

[Targan]

My feeling is that while T2K's canon timeline, OOBs etc were not very accurate they did set up a game universe which provided what I consider is the right "feel" for T2K as a genre. I don't mind canon being modified by the wise and knowledgeable people who contribute here (in fact I welcome it and have already adopted many of the works of contributors here for my own campaign) but I think it is important that the "spirit" and "feeling" of T2K be maintained.

That is why I've voiced doubts about some modifications to canon involving such things as how much military might is left over for the US military by 2000-2001. My belief is that we come up with reasons why things ended up the way they did in canon, not change the outcome described in canon because the way the timeline in canon is written makes the original outcome implausible.

Does this make sense

[Legbreaker]

That is why I've voiced doubts about some modifications to canon involving such things as how much military might is left over for the US military by 2000-2001. My belief is that we come up with reasons why things ended up the way they did in canon, not change the outcome described in canon because the way the timeline in canon is written makes the original outcome implausible.

Exactly! We have an end result with particular units being of certain composition in particular locations and situations. We also have (if we're lucky) a small amount of unit history from the vehicle books (and perhaps a couple of other sources).

What we should (IMHO) be doing is filling in the gaps, not twisting the info we've been provided to fit.

Yes, it's possible the US military may have come out of the war in better shape than in canon, but that changes the entire dynamic of the T2K world. Much better to find ways to explain why and how than why not and how not. This way we're all working on the same foundation and everyone's work will complement everyone elses rather than working against them.

[Webstral]

My feeling is that while T2K's canon timeline, OOBs etc were not very accurate they did set up a game universe which provided what I consider is the right "feel" for T2K as a genre. I don't mind canon being modified by the wise and knowledgeable people who contribute here (in fact I welcome it and have already adopted many of the works of contributors here for my own campaign) but I think it is important that the "spirit" and "feeling" of T2K be maintained.

That is why I've voiced doubts about some modifications to canon involving such things as how much military might is left over for the US military by 2000-2001. My belief is that we come up with reasons why things ended up the way they did in canon, not change the outcome described in canon because the way the timeline in canon is written makes the original outcome implausible.

Does this make sense

I completely agree with you. I feel badly about it, though, because holding this position seems, well, unappreciative of the massive amounts of time and energy some of the group devote to creating material. Also, I think many if not most of us agree that while Twilight: 2000 in Poland and in the US up to the end of the year creates a desirable (!) atmosphere, Howling Wilderness is a bit too much of a good thing. Where does that put us

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As a friend of mine once said, while some parts of Twilight are a little ropey (i.e. the Soviets & Mexicans invading the USA), the whole point was to create an environment where the player characters could continue to do what they had done in Europe. If the USA was in good health, then the RP opportunities found in the Europe scenarios would be lost - especially after all the trouble they take to get back the US. His attitude was that the game was not fighting a tabletop miniatures battle of Russian vs US divisions but was about a small group of people surviving in the ruins of WW3 or even trying to rebuild civilzation.

[Targan]

I completely agree with you. I feel badly about it, though, because holding this position seems, well, unappreciative of the massive amounts of time and energy some of the group devote to creating material. Also, I think many if not most of us agree that while Twilight: 2000 in Poland and in the US up to the end of the year creates a desirable (!) atmosphere, Howling Wilderness is a bit too much of a good thing. Where does that put us

That is the other side of the coin and I agree with you there too.

[Mohoender]

I agree - great movie, but the operation was a bit a gamble right from the beginning. Vital intelligence was ignored (such as the existance of two SS Divisions in the Arnhem area) and some units on both sides performed better (or worse as the case may be) than others.
It was however worth trying, but perhaps with a slightly shorter aim of say Nijmegen, and followed up later with another push. Of course that last few miles between Nijmegen and Arnhem isn't exactly what one would like to have to attack a defending enemy across....

That's why I talked of political intrigue on the side of Monty. He had failed his offensive in Normandy and the US had to intervene to save the situation. Then he was looking for a quick victory not for the sake of the allied but for that of his own pride (IMO but there are quite some good grounds to back this). Result: failure and needless losses. One can critic Eisenhower for several things but he never made that mistake. After D-day, Monty's attitude strongly resembled that of the French Marshalls in WWI (and for me they all qualify for war criminals). Strangely, Auchinlek couldn't stand him (I agree with Auchinlek).

[Mohoender]

My feeling is that while T2K's canon timeline, OOBs etc were not very accurate they did set up a game universe which provided what I consider is the right "feel" for T2K as a genre. I don't mind canon being modified by the wise and knowledgeable people who contribute here (in fact I welcome it and have already adopted many of the works of contributors here for my own campaign) but I think it is important that the "spirit" and "feeling" of T2K be maintained.

I agree entirely also I'm a little more forgiving than you but simply because its in the very nature of RPG to be modified by GM. Also it's interesting to modify it sometimes not because they were not good but simply because we have access to more materials. I still have all my books from the late 1980's and they couldn't come up with something else at the time. For my part, I don't contest their OOBs but rather precise them. As an exemple, the Caspian Flotilla is given a number of Riga-class frigate. That's simply impossible as these ships had been decommisisoned by 1985 and almost all had been scrapped by 1990. However, in documentation available to the public between 1988-1991, they were still covered as active ship.

That is why I've voiced doubts about some modifications to canon involving such things as how much military might is left over for the US military by 2000-2001. My belief is that we come up with reasons why things ended up the way they did in canon, not change the outcome described in canon because the way the timeline in canon is written makes the original outcome implausible.

Does this make sense

Perfect sense The final thing is up to everyone and serves only the purpose of the GM putting it down. Nevertheless, it's always interesting to see different points. By the way the Twilight team did that themselves, you'll find huge differences between OOBs in the main book and OOBs in secondary books.