What is "canon"?

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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]

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.

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.