DC group work = Canon Version 1.5

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Targan

Regular visitors may have noticed that I have made (I think) only one post since Kato's announcement. That is because I have been thinking about the decision and the ramifications it will have on this forum. If for the purposes of discussions on this forum we are required to regard the DC Working Group's work as canon I am afraid I will no longer feel comfortable posting here and my input will be minimal.

If things work out that way, I feel comfortable speaking for the overwhelming majority of us in saying that we will miss you, Targan. You've always been focused on improving the product.

I think there's room, even in "canon", for flexibility. I'm not feeling myself obliged to support 100% of the DC Group's material any more than I feel myself or they feel themselves obliged to support 100% of the GDW material in print. As many of our Australian brethren have pointed out, in sentiment if not in words, ultra-orthodoxy becomes stifling. I don't think anyone here is interested in establishing a Roman Catholic Church of or a Soviet Communist Party of Twilight: 2000.

By the same token, I believe Kato wants to rise above the sort of knee-jerk reaction against work like the DC Group's work ("That's not what the Bible says! Out with you, Martin Luther!") that was demonstrated in extremis a little while ago. What began as a discussion about what was possble, practicable, likely devolved into an argument over possession: in other words, who has the right to make claims about the shape of the Twilight: 2000 universe. Kato, who is understandably more sympathetic to contributors who invest massive quantities of time and effort into comprehensive products than those whose mannerisms, albeit probably not their intent, approach those of hecklers, has made a decision which I believe is meant to put off the near-heckling. Disagree with the DC Group as you see fit, gentlemen. I doubt the DC Group or our administrator are going to take particular umbrage so long as we can either come to some agreement or agree to disagree.

Webstral

[Jason Weiser]

I have refrained from comment until now because I felt that it was prudent and well advised to do so. My thoughts as a member of the DC Working Group are this: (be advised these comments are my own and do not represent the group as a whole).

As for canon or not, I don't care. You heard me, I don't. At the end of the day, this is a labor of love for all involved. I understand what Kato's trying to do, and lemme say that I am honored, and so is FF and Chico. But, and here's the but, at least as far as I am concerned. And Targan knows this because we discussed it in a PM, my issues (I won't speak for Chico or FF), were as Kato put it, with a single poster. I think some of my posts made that clear at the time. Targan, I'd ask you to reconsider leaving. This matter does need to be resolved, and I would ask that cooler heads prevail (Yeah, I know, coming from me). Do I have the solution? I think a sub-forum might be an idea, but and here's the but, it would cause a split in the board, and frankly, that would be a bad thing.

Different takes on a game are a good thing. The differing perspectives can offer some measure of food for thought. As I and the other members of the DC Working Group have said and will continue to maintain...don't like it, don't use it. Our main focus as a group is mainly to fill what we see as "holes" in canon with materials now available. At least, it was our emphasis when we began. I still think it is.

As for new material...here's the rub. Chico's working his ass off trying to get everything ready for our Third World War game to game out 1996-1997, and that's going to define how we write the vehicle guides as those will be our combat histories. Will that mean some divisions surviving when in canon, they did not, and vice versa? Maybe, but I have a funny feeling on the whole, it's going to go ala canon. Heck, I am going to be the Soviet commander...wanna guess how much I am going to get hammered?

So, what can you guys out there do? Be patient, and instead of screaming at each other the canon "how many angels can be made to dance on the head of a pin" argument, why not take a page from Traveller and use the acronym "IMT2KU", or "In My Twilight 2000 Universe", they came up with so they don't kill each other...and they somehow still manage to reenact the Rebellion daily.......

[fightingflamingo]

I had written a long response which I lost as I timed out. I may or may not reconstruct and post later... let's just say as another member of the DC Group I'm close to Jason's response but longer.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by fightingflamingo

I had written a long response which I lost as I timed out. I may or may not reconstruct and post later... let's just say as another member of the DC Group I'm close to Jason's response but longer.

I have increased the standard cookie time to 30 min.

It is funny it has happened to me a dozen times but I never even thought about fixing it until i realized it inconvenienced someone else. I guess never thought about others laboring over posts the same way I do.

If you guys have issues on the site like this please don't be afraid to mention them. I may not tackle them right away but I truly do want to make this the best experience possible.

[fightingflamingo]

Thanks Kato, I'll try again in a bit...

[fightingflamingo]

general, I’m in agreement with Mr. Weiser. There are some differences, nuanced maybe, but differences they remain. So I’ll try to explain my position as best I can without diverging into a rambling mess or a rant, and If I do so my apologies in advance. My comments are mine alone, and do not represent any other member of the DC Working Group (contributing or otherwise).

As to the Canonicity of the DC Working Groups work, this really doesn’t matter to me. It certainly isn’t canon in the narrowly defined view of what some posters have stated, since it wasn’t produced by GDW. However, then from the first time any GM touches “Escape from Kalisz” every campaign is noncanonical from that point forward. Second, the original game creators left so much of the back story vague, that I cannot accept that there is any issue with creating material for personal use, and displaying it for others. I would not consider any such material canon in any sense, it simply is our vision for the T2K universe, and it is freely presented for others to use, adapt, or discard depending on their own needs, desires, and campaigns.

IMHO our work at the DC Group started simply as an effort to fill in the blanks, left out by canon. We diverged almost immediately from that when we adopted Webstral’s “the Storm in Germany” along with the core of the V1 history, as our agreed starting point (within the DC group). As we did research, we came upon different issues which we felt needed to be addressed in what we perceived as a logical manner, based on RL Cold War planning from the mid to late 1980’s, and extrapolated what our best guess would be regarding that planning had the Cold War continued into the 1990’s. This has lead us to look issues like Naval Power (to include CW planned building schedules), Mobilization Plans (NATO & WP), national industrial output & it’s mobilization for war, etc. Critics have said that we give too much strength to the U.S., maybe, but on balance I think we’ve been fair to every participant in the war as evidenced by the Massive WP OOB which Chico recently posted.

As we researched and addressed those issues, more questions and gaps appeared to us (perhaps we dug too deeply, but we for the most part enjoy doing the work), and we felt compelled to address them, or at least talk about them. From this point I was my intention to build a comprehensive vision of the T2K world with likeminded enthusiasts, for a game I’ve loved for over two decades that is internally consistent, and follows our shared perception of theT2K world. Call it T2K: DCWG.

Others in the group have felt that some of our critics have been on the verge of personal attacks regarding the content of some of our posts. I personally have not felt this way about any of my posts on this or the previous board, but I have seen responses here that seemed to take on that character which were directed towards others in the DC Group. I find it juvenile, and while it will not stop me from posting, I can see where if would drive others to a position of “F-This, F-Them” well you get the point.

Our material is not Canon. While I appreciate the intent of Kato’s elevation of our status to that of Canon, it seems inappropriate to me. Use, adapt, or discard our material as you wish. We don’t do it to force it on you; we do it because we like doing it. If the board likes something, of course I’m happy (more so if I contributed to the product), but that’s not my motivation. My motivation is to create a T2K vision I’m happy with, and would use as a back drop to a campaign.

Personal attacks are not good, for the community as a whole. Any criticism should be view (and I try to do so) as an attempt by the critic to help the author improve, or point out issues that may have been overlooked with an eye towards improving the overall quality of fan produced material in our community. When this devolves into arguments over canonicity, it discourages some from posting their Ideas; when in truth everything everyone creates for their own T2K visions in not canonical, and that is OK.
If our vision of T2K changes history for another game we don’t play… ummm I really can’t say I care, I don’t play T2300. If you do, you don’t have to use our stuff, or play an alternate T2300, whatever floats your boat. We just aim to present an internally consistent vision of the T2K world, our T2K world, T2K: DCWG. Use what you like, discard what you like (or everything), or amend our work to suit your needs.

I don’t think I’d like to see a separate sub forum for our work, as I’m interested in the comments others make on our works, and hearing constructive criticism. I think that a sub forum will just isolate us from the remainder of this community, which I don’t view as a positive outcome.

One Semester left of Grad School, hopefully after May, if my kids let me I will be once again producing closer to my former level, which was present on the prior board.

Kato, thanks for providing this forum, and I wish you the best in your personal trials.

To the rest of you, let us all keep this discourse civil, at it provides an escape for more than one of us, from life’s trials, so let’s keep it civil, or better yet fun.

One Semester left of Grad School, hopefully after May, if my kids let me I will be once again producing closer to my former level, which was present on the prior board.

[simonmark6]

"What's in a name?
That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."

I have been reluctant to contribute to this debate until I'd clarified my thoughts in order to avoid offending anyone. if my comments still do that, I apologise in advance.

Firstly, I am very grateful for the work of the DC Group (who have never, ever claimed that their work is canon) and all other major contributors to our love of the game, they make the world of my imagination richer and for that, I can't thank them enough.

Secondly, whatever we call that work is largely a matter of semantics, legally, it can't be called canon, however if Kato wants to call it that, I have no problem, it's only a name.

Thirdly, I'd like to bring up the point that I think Webstral mentioned in another thread about feedback on submissions. I'd suggest that posters say if their work is a finished product put up for the interest and use of others, or a draft that invites criticism and feedback. If it's a finished product, people repliying to the post should just take it or leave it rather than debate its merits since it isn't going to be changed: if you like it, say thanks, if you don't, say nothing or post a finished piece of work that reflects your point of view.

If a piece requests feedback, healthy debate is to be expected, and the author may get something they didn't want, that's the danger of asking for feedback. It's also the benefit, because you may get feedback that helps you improve your work, either way, you take the risk by inviting feedback.

Please note, I'm assuming that feedback will remain the relatively civilised and informed responses we've had so far, flaming and thuggery are never to be tolerated even if feedback is invited.

As for nomenculture, if you want to use Canon 1.5 it makes no real difference to me, however if we are sticking with the religious overtones, the "Apocrypha" has much more flavour.

Or what about the DC Univerese? Or does that have another meaning?

Again, if I have offended, I apologise wholeheartedly.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Thirdly, I'd like to bring up the point that I think Webstral mentioned in another thread about feedback on submissions. I'd suggest that posters say if their work is a finished product put up for the interest and use of others, or a draft that invites criticism and feedback. If it's a finished product, people repliying to the post should just take it or leave it rather than debate its merits since it isn't going to be changed: if you like it, say thanks, if you don't, say nothing or post a finished piece of work that reflects your point of view.

If a piece requests feedback, healthy debate is to be expected, and the author may get something they didn't want, that's the danger of asking for feedback. It's also the benefit, because you may get feedback that helps you improve your work, either way, you take the risk by inviting feedback.

Please note, I'm assuming that feedback will remain the relatively civilised and informed responses we've had so far, flaming and thuggery are never to be tolerated even if feedback is invited.

I wholeheartedly second this suggestion. I think authors of user-created material need to clearly state whether or not they want feedback and/or constructive critisism. If an author states that they don't want feedback, and a reader doesn't like what he sees, the reader should respect the author's intent, keep quiet, and ignore it. The readers don't have to use the material in their T2KU.

On the other hand, if an author invites feedback, readers/responders need to be as civil and constructive as possible.

As Jason reiterated, I also think taking a page out of Traveller and applying the IMT2KU tag to user generated material or anything that diverges from GDW's published source material. I think it helps to remember that we all, at some point or another, and to some degree, diverge from "canon" (i.e. GDW's published materials) any time we play or GM Twilight 2000. Arguing about what is or is not canon is counterproductive.

We are the keepers of the fire. Any time we lose a member, that fire dims a little bit.

Targan, we haven't always agreed on everything (I'd like to think we've been in agreement more often than not) but I've always respected your opinions and valued your insights. And, your campaign stories are legendary. Please don't scale back your participation here. I think that we're all trying to work through this upheaval and come out the other side a stronger, wiser, more tolerant group.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

If things work out that way, I feel comfortable speaking for the overwhelming majority of us in saying that we will miss you, Targan.

I'm just going to lay low on the forum for a while and see how things pan out. I'm not intending to up and quit permanently.