canon versus non-canon in a non-supported game

[95th Rifleman]

While we all strive to portray things as accurately as possible, I believe, in most cases we do fall in to being victims of our own national prides at times. Indeed, who wouldn't want to see his own country emerge out of the ashes of war as the prime rebuilder of humanity It is only human to think, realistic or not, the armed forces of your own particular nation are those more far better and more powerful when compared to those of the usual nemesis.

Ironicly my group is rather the opposite, we tend to make allot out of the UK being the little guy, poorly equipped and supplied, having to make do with what we can find and use.

Historicly the British have always been the underdog, the stubborn little bastards who have no business doing well or winning. We succeed despite our failings, almost because of them. let us not forget in WW2 while everyone else where developing man-portable, anti-tank rockets we had a spring loaded monster with no range and was hardy to reload than a freaking crossbow!

Our games focus allot on how things have gone to hell and there is no higher organisation or control. We don't deviate from the post-apocalyptic side of T2k, it's what appeals to us.

[simonmark6]

Apart from the hundred years where we effectively ruled the world...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

let us not forget in WW2 while everyone else where developing man-portable, anti-tank rockets we had a spring loaded monster with no range and was hardy to reload than a freaking crossbow!

Yes, but it had no launch signature, and it's hollow-charge warhead was more effective (when it hit) than anything until the Panzerschreck was created. One was used to destroy a Panzer IV attempting to cross Pegasus bridge in the early hours of June 6th 1944, blocking further armor advances for a while.

[B.T.]

Maybe I should make one thing clear:

I am one of those, who "critizised" the original game (and it's makers/inventors/publishers) a few days ago: I said, I'd not buy the idea of Greek and Italy uniting against NATO. And one of the weak points in the written history of T2k - IMHO - is the idea, that WW III begins with a German invasion of Poland. In my personal view this was not to happen.
But:
I take the things, written in the rules book as they are, because I like to play a game (That Game). It is escapist entertainment. The game does not portray the real world, but it takes elements of the real history and puts them together in a different way, to give the background for a game!

One of the problems with all RPG (=Role Playing Games , not Rocket Propelled Grenades) that continously write their history forth, is the possible establishment of a paradox. Just like Olefin mentioned in his opening post, the players may run an adventure in a way, that was not intended. And the whole setup of the modules cannot work the way, they were planned.

The only RPG that I know, that used to do this in different way, was actually Hrnmaster. The makers discribed a world up to a certain point in time. And everything that happened afterwards, was not touched by published materials. (Well, that's what I learned about the first edition of Hrnmaster, and I don't even know, If Columbia changed that, or if there has ever been a second edition. Maybe Targan can provide some insight here)

So: From my very personal point of view I can say, that I really like the efforts of several members, to change/add things. Or write their own personal stories, that differ from canon. What I like, can be of great value, because it gives me insights or new ideas, that may change my game. If someone writes something, that does not fit to my perception of the T2k universe - so what I don't have to use it.

When Legbreaker says, canon should be a safe point, he's right! But I, for myself, have the chance to stick to canon, or not. (No contradiction here, Legbreaker. I think, up to now I stick to canon, but if I would not, that would be my personal affair. Here on the board; canon should be accepted, or people should clearly say: "What follows differs from canon ...")

And if someone asks for input or criticism, we should be able (and adult enough) to give a helping hand. If someone wants to add further detail, that does not interfere with canon, but is not mentioned in canon, it is a useful thing, to discuss, if those alterations could interfere with published material.

And, by the way: We all are here, because we like one of the T2k incarnations. That is, what we have all in common. Maybe we should bear that in mind and keep it friendly.

Hm, I hope, you understand what I'm trying to say. It is a touchy subject and I'm not so convinced of may LNG: English skill. As always: no offense intended!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

B.T., the World of Greyhawk setting for Advanced D&D did that with its timeline, too. There's a rich background of political events that unfold not unlike a "Twilight:2000" for a fantasy world (two huge empires unleash terrible weapons and utterly destroy one another, leaving a broken world of imperial city-states peopled by desperate men and women scavenging the ruins for supplies, magic items and so on, hiring themselves out as mercenaries, etc.)

It brought the "game clock" from thousands of years in the past to "Common Year" 576 and left the rest up to the DM...

[Olefin]

Sorry Leg - but the Twilight 2000 game that I play is not 2013 - so even if the writers are still here unless they are issuing new modules, new articles, etc. then the canon is unsupported. And 2013 canon doesnt interest me as I dont play that game.

And no there is no reason we must respect canon unless the game becomes a living supported game by the original writers again - and no one except you is trying to shove anything down anyone's throat (i.e. the constant we must respect canon that you say to anyone who isnt 100 percent toeing the canon line that we hear so often)

Now I will say this - if Frey or Wiseman start reissuing canon articles or modules or whatever I would LOVE IT (hint hint hint) - but until then we have an unsupported game that really will be different depending on who the GM is -

for instance City of Angels, which according to FarFuture is considered apocrypha and not really part of the canon, is considered canon by those who played it and whose characters now have that as part of their history

as I said - in our game the second that sniper shot killed the Baron the canon went out the window - in canon he leads his army back to Warsaw - in our game he was killed and gone long before the Return to Warsaw module was released

so our GM basically threw that module out - same with White Eagle - the Polish Free Congress got the Madonna and that priest, with no Madonna, had his army destroyed by the Silesian one - again there goes canon

as for the Boomer - we got there with a full crew, not a scratch one - and instead of sinking her after we got to her, MilGov took her home - and thus inherited a ballistic missile sub (but with only three functional missiles) that they intended to use as a particularily well armed power station

again there goes canon

I bet that there are dozens of similar stories out there where modules either were made irrelevant by character actions or had to be majorly changed

a great example - when we busted out we sprung a bunch of American POW's out both in the Escape and in the Madonna module - some of them stayed with B troop when we found them but we showed up at Krakow with 8 player characters and almost 28 NPC's along for the ride - and our GM had to do some rewriting to make certain things challenging - and all because of the roads we took

I am very happy at the responses to this thread - it shows that the forum is both very alive and full of people who love the game and the forum

and if you dont agree with me and my opinions, no skin off my nose

and if the creators of T2000 who are on this forum want to help us with the canon - even if what they say is totally different than what I think - I would love to see that kind of thing here

[Legbreaker]

Olefin, you're missing the point.

In your own private game group, what happens is canon for them. Just because it happens to them, doesn't mean it's relevant to everyone else.

The books on the other hand are canon for everyone unless altered by events within their own game.

It's all well and good to say "this is what we think", "how we did it", but it's completely unacceptable to push those opinions upon everyone else. The books, while we all disagree with some, or many points within them, provide us all, as a worldwide community with a common foundation. As I stated before, and others have reiterated, if a person wants to create something with the intention of others using it, then they MUST stick with the information in the books, or, as Rainbow Six has done, give some pretty damn compelling reasons why they've made alterations, and detail exactly what they are.

To simply declare published materials as rubbish and demand all others agree with you is a recipe for conflict.

Many, many times I've been described as a "canon nazi", but that's mainly because I strongly believe that anything I write should be useful to everyone. In my own games I make changes and (I hope) improvements, but I'm not about to ram them down other peoples throats. I'm all for discussing rules changes, or interpretations of the evidence given in the books. My very first post on this forum was an assessment of the spring offensive written after weeks of research. Even though I've probably spent more time on that one period than any 10 other people, members of this forum have provided different viewpoints which has caused me to alter some of my own.

To me, this forum is a collaboration of many like minded people all working for a similar goal - the extension and improvement of T2K resources, without upsetting the delicate world balance or radically altering things so it's no longer anything like T2K.

Finally, nobody is saying everyone MUST stick to canon and damn all the rest. Diversions and alterations are great, but as a community, we must work from a common foundation. If anyone wants to create something different, then good on them, but they need to identify it as an alternative.

[James Langham]

This isn;t something I comment in normally being a dedicated follower of canon, but...

Possibly the best option is what appears to be happening now, anything which deviates from GDW's published work gets marked "NON-CANON," preferably in the subject. I personally try to stick hard to canon but appreciate that sometimes this can produce difficulties for a writer. I have to admit I personally find non-canon articles less interesting but tend to read them and reuse ideas (the way I encourage others to do with mine). Rainbow, I particularly appreciate the Alternative Survivor's Guide to the UK - if I hadn;t invested all the time into my background I would probably just use yours - please keep writing.

BOTH types of posts have a place and as long as it is clear which it is I see no problems. Common sense would suggest that if an author says something is non-canon he/she should not be criticized for it deviating although others should be free to point out the effects of the change on the world or holes in the research. Please all keep writing both canon and non-canon.

PS James Blunt stays as background colour! :-)

[Rainbow Six]

OK, maybe I did read read between the lines a little too much on this one and see things that weren't there - I suspect Simon probably got it right when he said I'm emotionally attached to my work. At least I've dealt with what would most likely have been an elephant in the room for me otherwise, so I can now press on and try and get some more sections completed.

And Leg, it is absolutely my intention to pull everything together into one document one day which can then be shared with everyone, but I didn't realise my habit of tinkering was that obvious!

It also occurs to me that I may be causing some confusion with some of my stand alone pieces, e.g. Mandalay Company, the Anglo German Brigade, etc, most of which are intended to be compatible with canon, so going forward when posting any material I will clarify whether it's intended to fit canon or fit my Alternative SGUK.

Cheers guys.

[Tombot]

I know this is a discussion mainly beetween the forum-vets, which contributed for quite a while. But here are my two cents;
I like T2k for its atmosphere and the tone, the GDW-authors found to present their world. There is a ton of material, but theres no official stuff published anymore.
To me thats good, cause there is much more (adventures, campaigns, scenario-hints) than my friends and i will be able to play, i guess.
We played through the krakow-module and the first half of "Going Home", and that kept us busy now for several month (we try to play weekly, but right now its usually every two weeks for only 3-5 hours a session).

Besides the actual campaign were playing, i like to write down scenario-ideas of all kinds. Since there is no more stuff produced, but there are so many regions described by canon, we have the freedom to "fill the white gaps" by ourselfes, without the "risk" of getting overruled by a new module appearing next summer.
Because i do like T2k, i like its canon, it gives me a guide for new "What if"-
Situations in places, not mentioned in the modules.
The freedom to make up your own stuff (or to read the good things a lot of the other fans produced), is very satisfying.

The feeling of having done something, in the "spirit" of canon is something only aquired by some thoughtfull handywork.
I do appreciate the work, i saw here done, by so many of you. And i do with my own stuff; when i present a coloured map,introduce some well-prepared NPCs, to my group.
The discussions among the forum-members about quality, or some nitpicking over little details, is ok, cause we all like to think about T2k (and thats not for everyone in the year 2012! Shit, were old farts ).
But if i dont like what somebody else is proud of; i wouldnt comment.
Its like talking about music or special food. Its just your or my taste about some hobby we share.

As long as we have some common ground (and that should be canon), we can differ from each other, that what IS interesting, thats what gives you new insights and ideas.
And there are many of those here to be found. We can be glad, that there are still others left (considering were talking about a game from ancient times now) in this forum, to share our thoughts with, instead of running each other down.

[simonmark6]

I suppose I could always game out a Welsh Secret Services assassination of him for his abuses to the art of choral singing. Then again, his effects on morale are probably worth a batallion so he might have to live....

New Twilight 2000 fanfic coming up:

James Blunt must die!

[B.T.]

New Twilight 2000 fanfic coming up:

James Blunt must die!

[simonmark6]

However, before we get pinged for being a paramilitary organisation plotting James' Blunt's death I must add that I'm happy the chap's doing well for himself. Just because his singing is puerile and he's a sell-out doesn't really justify his death.

[B.T.]

IRL I'm actually some kind of pacifist. I'd never want somebody to get killed IRL ...

But having James Blunt as a NPC in a RPG - that's just scary. I dont want him in my T2k universe. But I think, we can assume James Blunt being excluded from canon, can we

[Legbreaker]

IRL I'm actually some kind of pacifist. I'd never want somebody to get killed IRL ...

I'll happily do it....