Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan
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.