What is "canon"?
 

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):

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?

Question: What is "canon"?

Answer: Something that shoots "shels"

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 êtes plus royaliste que le Roi" (You are getting more royalist than the king himself).

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.

Obvious, you have been hitting at an open door.

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.

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!

Again this is obvious.

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".;)

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

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.

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

Tempting:D;). 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...

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 . . .

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....

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

Market-Garden was Monty's baby, and it was a giant clusterf**k.

Ok Leg,
Time to get off the high horse. You want to couch your view on canon or not based on what GDW did, fine. Got no problem with that. But here's where frankly, I am calling you out...when you accuse me, Chico, FF and Law of "forcing" anyone to accept anything we do.

Since when did ANYTHING we wrote come with a use or else label? Did we have the game police knock down your door? Nope. And who in the hell died and made you keeper of WHAT IS CANON? If Mark Miller or Frank Frey or Loren Wiseman want to weigh in, great. I'll take their word...matter of fact, I know when Mr. Frey saw Law's work on the USMC, he said it was better than what he had originally done for RDF Sourcebook, don't believe me? I can dig up the post.

Leg, want the truth? I think your viceral feelings toward our work have a personal element. Targan isn't nuts about some of what we do, but I have never seen him be as downright nasty as you have been on occasion. Somehow, he can manage to be rather respectful towards everyone on the boards..and you know something else? This is the first damn time I've ever had to lower the boom on a poster on an internet board. Mohrender had it right about you I am afraid. I'm going to say it again, Don't like what we do? Fine, write something yourself that MEETS your standards of what meets T2K and then perhaps, I'd at least see some effort back up your vehemence. Till then, you're all blow and no show.

I like to ask for some temperance here because I truly do not recall Legbreaker claiming that we have been forced to accept the DC groups work.
I'm not saying people shouldn't argue their positions but I get the feeling that more and more water is piling up behind the dam and people are trying to poke the dam wall to see if it will break.

I hope that your statement is based simply on a misuderstanding and not guilty conscience? ;)

The DC Group obviously puts in a decent amount of hours on their work. The time taken definately shows in the quality of the result. I may not agree with a percentage of what is produced, but I'm still impressed by it. I even use some of it.

I also cannot recall any members of the DC Group directly stating their work is canon, or will be canon. I can however recall others having that impression (obviously incorrectly).

Canon is canon, pure and simple. Don't like what you see? Go change it, publish your own interpretation and open it up to discussion. Don't however try to force your, or anybody elses ideas on the community as a whole with the aim of pushing canon aside. (Note the above is a general statement not aimed any anyone in particular).

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=3255#post3255
That was my very first post on this site. Based on many hours of close reading of virtually all the canon books, I'd like to think it's a reasonable peice of work. It might not actually BE canon, but it's got to be a reasonable continuation of the base information.

There has been other lengthy posts on a number of subject also. I may not have published a book, or created an alternate timeline (something I'm not interested in anyway), but nearly five hundred posts in about nine months has to mean I'm at least contributing in one way or another.

So why should I need to defend my position?

Canon is, well, canon. Take it or leave it, say what you want about it, just don't force your own opinions and outlook on others (whoever you may be).

And above all, relax!

Come on fellas. Getting in any sort of point-by-point back and forth arguement is just going to make things worse between people and stink this place up.

Some people are strict "canon" addicts. Others throw "canon" out the window and do what they want. Neither side is EVER going to convince the other that their way is right or that the other side has to recognize their particular viewpoint. Just let people believe and do what they want with the game. If you don't like what some people put out, don't read their stuff.

Just respect that each person is going to have different views. And if you (as in anyone) find you're going to post while the tempers are flared, it's better to simply log off and come back a few hours later after you've calmed down.

I'm with Grimace. Also, from a selfish point of view, I want Kato to start participating on the forum again and I think returning to this dispute will make that less likely to happen. If for no other reason lets tone things down in consideration for the feelings of the man who allows us to participate on this forum in the first place. I miss him.

Hm. Well said.

Webstral

Looking back at the posts around Legbreaker's linked post, it seems that the realism v established system argument has been simmering for more than a year. I missed out on all this during the school year.

Law and others raise a very good point: Twilight: 2000 is so Army-centric that the sister services are practically an afterthought, with the exception of the Marines in general and the RDF Sourcebook in particular. I don't know whether the designers are all Army vets with Vietnam service as was supposed last Fall, but that seems a reasonable hypothesis. Being a Army-centric kind of guy even in 1985 when I discovered Twilight: 2000 (I was 15), I never gave the Army orientation of Twilight: 2000 more than a passing thought. Sure, I sometimes wondered what had become of the USAF and the USN; but I quickly turned my attention back to matters closer to my heart. My service years did surprisingly little to change my basic prejudice.

Equally, Twilight: 2000 is a game, after all. Realism is an important component, but playability is a factor that can't be ignored. Howling Wilderness was brought out specifically to provide players with the kind of ongoing chaos that some players and GMs prefer.

Okay, my better half can't seem to get through the evening without my undivided attention, so I will cut my observations short.

Webstral

Thanks for giving me a laugh out of this otherwise less than happy thread.

Who needs an airforce or navy anyway?

:D

Okay first off... please keep this civilized people.

I agree with Legbreaker that what is canon is canon. But when world events suddenly make the canon obsolete then maybe its time to be a little flexible. The worlds greatest authority on using canon is the Catholic Church... and as a result of their inflexibility to change it resulted in Protestant movement under Martin Luther. Can not something like that happen here.

BUT what I would like to see if people working together and we bring TWL2000 up to date with the current changes. I know Smokewolf attempted this with TWL 2013 but he also changed he whole system too.

I would love Kato to come back too. I miss his wisdom, wit and his great hairy legs!! (Still have that picture of you in those speedos big boy!!)

Maybe we can get Kato to set up a NON canon separate forum and the best and the brightest like the DC group and Moh can use it set out their ideas?

Just my idea.

Personnally, I like what you write and never felt forced in anyways. As a matter of fact, I don't use your materials and never will (simple, it doesn't fit my own vision of the game). A roleplaying game's atmosphere change with every GM.

Anyway, the only one with a true right to challenge what you do (and what we all do) are the original team and the new one. So far, it seems they appreciate (not really surprising as we all help keeping this great game alive) and as far as everyone is concerned that should be enough.

I understand leg's position toward cannon but, he makes me feel sometimes as if he was the game's owner. Leg, if you are, please say it outloud so we make a church for you:D. If you're not, just speak your mind with a bit of moderation as there are no T2K's high priest.;)

As I said, that thread help defend his point.:cool:

(Hi hi hi):p

Philosophy is never happy unless you practice it with Vodka (Nazdarovieh!!) but it may be useful.:p

As far as I'm concerned I have the feeling we do, at last.:quickdraw

Yeehah! I always knew I was an Heretic. Actually, I'm a Pagan. By the way the exemple you site ended in bloodshed (men, women and children alike) and almost 50 years of civil war for France with the last consequences 200 years later (begining in 1562 and ending in 1787):D.

We make me think of my two daughters fighting (respectively 4 and 2 years old).;)

Sorry, after compiling ships for two days, I cannon keep it serious. :p

Keep up the bad puns and we will shoot you OUT of the cannon!! LOL

If this comes across as rather antagonistic, that is not my intent but as I have been frequently told, I don't have a sense of humour and I'm too blunt

Actually I believe this point is invalid, 'canon' is accepted as the body of work published by GDW (the games and their sourcebooks, Challenge magazine articles) or those bodies of work published by others with GDW's permission (The City Of Angels module). Even those articles written by former GDW staff (before or after GDW was closed down) should not be blindly accepted as canon unless they actually have GDW approval.
Real World events after the 'canon' start-of-war date of 1996 are completely irrelevant to the Twilight: 2000 game. If we completely threw out what was canon because the real world history was different to the game world histroy, nobody would ever have played Twilight: 2000 after 1996. If you start changing the canon material just to suit what's happened in the real world, you end up with the ludicrous 'Greedo fired first' situation that George Lucas foisted off on the fans in the 1990s editions of the original Star Wars movies because he felt they should be more family friendly (i.e. politically correct)

Arguement can be successfully made to include any real world equipment that was available by 1996 but wasn't included in the books so things like the Russian APS underwater assault rifle are perfectly acceptable. However by the gameworld history as set down by GDW, Germany was still divided up until 1996 and so the G36 should not be included as the G11 was going to be the next rifle for German forces.

If anybody needs a list of what is actual 'canon' material, visit Far Future Enterprises website and see what's on the CD-ROMs for Twilight 1st edition and 2nd edition... anything else is not canon

I too feel that this is probably a suitable solution

I always thought canon was something you shoot at the enemy...never mind, a bad, over-used joke...

Canon does, and should, evolve over time, as people get new, and sometimes better ideas. Look how Gary Gygax fought changes to D&D canon for almost 15 years. He felt for a long time that what he and Dave Arneson came up with was the ONLY canon. Eventually, he had to bend, and accept that other people could come up with good ideas. Canon sometimes changes, and sometimes must change to keep up with the times.

I agree with the first part (or 1985 if you are playing V1) -- to a point. See my previous post.

As for the second part -- a good amount of weapons programs would have been accelerated as the storm clouds gathered, and during the war, previously overlooked or passed-over projects might have been put into limited production. World War 2 is a good example of this, though I'll grant you that they didn't have to contend with global nuclear strikes. On top of this, we are still finding out about weapons programs the Soviets were working on during the cold war, and after the Wall fell, we discovered a lot of surprising stuff they had. The details of my ideas on this would make too long a post; if anyone wants to know more of my thoughts, email or PM me.

As for the third part -- again, see my previous post.

T2K (not T2K13) is in a way a "dead" system -- no one is publishing anything new for it. WE (and other T2K forums and sites) are now the makers of canon. We are the means by which the T2K progresses. If GDW hadn't gone under, or if Marc Miller had decided to continue the T2K saga, our ideas might have been the driving force behind published T2K. Now, we T2K enthusiasts are the only driving force.

Nothing to debate anymore. Paul said it all.

Thanks Paul.:)

I understand your points but I respectfully disagree. 'Canon' is the material created by the original authors.
If they choose to alter that (such as Twilight 1st edition to 2nd edition), that is their right as the originators of the material.
I am not saying canon doesn't change nor am I saying it should never change.
What I am saying is that if you are not the original author of the material or you do not have the approval of the original author, then you are not producing material that is canon
Whether anyone likes it or not, the people from 93 Games Studio have every right to regard their work as canon material for a third edition of Twilight: 2000 because they actually obtained permission to do so from the people who hold the intellectual property rights.

As I alluded to before, any equipment programmes that originated before the end of 1996 (I must confess that I have never paid much attention to 1st edition as I was introduced to the game through 2nd edition) are all perfectly feasible for inclusion if they fit into the gameworld as described in 'canon'. Anything from after the war was finishing is not really suitable because the world has lost most of its research/development and manufacturing abilities let alone the transportation and organizational ability required to obtain the necessary resources.
Again going to the example of the G36, it was designed in the mid 1990s as a replacement for the failed project to replace the G3 with the G11. By the 'canon' timeline, the G11 was accepted because the events in the gameworld did not replicate events in the real world. Therefore the reasons for creating the G36 do not actually exist within the gameworld.
This is exactly why 'canon' can only compose the original material produced by the author or material that is authorised by the author. Anything else, no matter how fitting or appropriate, is a supplement.

Lets forget about any talk of legal definitions or intellectual property rights here, we are talking about a fundemental principle of acknowledging who produced the original material and exactly what that material is irrespective of if we set about modifying to suit our own tastes.
I cannot simply change the Mona Lisa because I think the painting isn't suitable for modern tastes because her clothes are out of date and then pass it off as the author's original work and as such WE, because we are not the original authors of Twilight: 2000, are not now the makers of canon simply because the timeline is outdated or doesn't fit modern history or because the company who produced it no longer exists.
The Twilight: 2000 canon has already been established by the originators of the material, anything we produce now is a supplement or an alternative and that remains constant regardless of the game being a dead system or not. To claim that something we produce now is canon simply because the game is no longer produced is perilously close to claiming we are the makers of the original product.

Stainless, you have summed up my position and the truth of the matter beautifully!

Canon, plain and simple is what's been produced by the originators, the writers, the designers and publishers. By definition, such works as City of Angels and Twilightcycle: 2000 are not canon (especially the latter), but are still certainly useful additions to any collection.

The same goes for anything we produce. It's not canon, but from what I've seen we've got some damn fine and talented writers and researchers amongst us and nobody should stop doing what they've been doing.

All I ask is that canon be recognised for what it is - the foundation everything else is built upon. As much as we individuals and groups may not like what's been given to us, as a foundation it cannot change, it can only be built upon.

Time for me to don my asbestos pants and dangle my arse over the parapet for some flaming. I missed out on the majority of this argument for a variety of reasons, mostly lack of PC time at the minute. I've always felt that we had a civilised forum here, free of the pissing contests that mark most other forums. I'd like to see a return to that. As far as canon goes I don't think I've ever played a strictly canon game of anything. Every GM changes something to suit their style of game or players. If you don't you'll end up not having fun, and for me anyway fun is what the game is all about. Do what suits your game, but don't piss and moan about what others do with theirs. I would love to have the time and abilities to devote to rewriting everything that I don't agree with, but I don't. I do have a huge amount of respect for others who do, and I will cherry pick ideas as they suit me. I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to peoples expectations, but please don't take this as me taking sides. There are a lot of great parts to the canon, there is also a lot of great homebrew stuff out there. I'll continue to use what I like and what suits my game, end of story. Sorry if I'm pissing on peoples cornflakes, but that's the way I see it. Can we just please get over this, move away from personal attacks and get back to what we do best - fragging marauders, brigands, bandits and dodging those places that glow in the dark. Kato did a great job setting this place up when the old forum shit on us and I feel personally appalled that he felt he could no longer be involved his forum. Let's tone it down and see if we can get the big guy back again. At the end of the day its only a game.

Now feel free to toast me to a crisp :)

Can't do it, too great was the wisdom in your words. You spake true.

Then stop posting in this thread :D



Text is such a bad medium for trying to be humorous :p

Posted by RN7
 

Well this getting beyond the Australia discussion Mohender.

I doubt bombers would used in a first strike by either America or Russia, particularly against each other. Although boomers may be used in conjunction with land based ICBMs.


Probably right here.


They may use some, but there are other targets (Australia) that need to be hit as well.


I think they would be largely used against American and NATO targets closer to the USSR.


Well they dont really need to use the SS-18 (R-36M2) to hit the US as other ICBM's have the range, but to cause the most damage they would be well suited.


I don't think we will ever know will we.


If the Soviets launched a first strike on the US I think its highly probable that most if not all of the US silo based ICBMs would be launched before they were destroyed by the incoming Soviet missiles.