Good Luck, You're on your Own! (T2K Fanzine Thread)

[Legbreaker]

The situation with the 49th is very open to interpretation as the discussions on this site have shown - there's no way it could be simply transplanted from here without a major rewrite and rider attached stating it's just one point of view - a lot like "The Twilight War: Naval Forces by Matt Wiser" is just one point of view and has holes the size of an aircraft carrier in it based on discussions I've seen here over the years (doesn't make it wrong, just different to cannon).

[Cdnwolf]

I think we all know the canon by heart and this magazine is the chance for people to put in stuff that they think would work well in other peoples games. It is written by the people for the people.

[Targan]

I'm very supportive of the fanzine but I think it would be good to have some sort of disclaimer on articles that have content which greatly diverges from (or directly contradicts) the official published material. Otherwise readers who don't know the canon material off by heart or don't own everything ever published for T2K may assume that what they read in the fanzine fits in with the official material seamlessly.

I'm not saying that majorly divergent material shouldn't be in the fanzine (on the contrary), I'm saying that some indication that material is a major departure (in the form of a disclaimer) would be nice. The USN article in particular would benefit from this idea.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'm not saying that majorly divergent material shouldn't be in the fanzine (on the contrary), I'm saying that some indication that material is a major departure (in the form of a disclaimer) would be nice.

Exactly!

[Grimace]

I will add a bit at the beginning explaining that the fanzine articles are, by no means, indicative of established Twilight: 2000 and Twilight: 2013 material. Articles can certainly have content that could directly contradict material in previously published material.

I don't want to get into a big nitpicking session of what jives with established timelines and what doesn't. I don't care, honestly. Those that do care will know the difference, and those that don't care (like myself) will use what they want for their games. The last thing I want to do is start selectively denoting articles as non-supportive to official timeline. That will turn people off from submitting material. I've already told people that if others have interpretations that contradict what others have put material into the fanzine, they can still submit it. I won't put directly contradictory material in the same issue, and I'll do my best not to put contradictory material in back-to-back issues either.

I don't want to turn this fanzine into a "my material is better than your material" type of thing. Everyone's material deserves to be shown if they want to share it. It doesn't have to jive with the official timelines. It doesn't even have to jive with the official game system if someone has something for another game mechanic they want to share.

I want this fanzine to be something people can pick up, see a variety of different and hopefully intriguing ideas, and hopefully enjoy it. People are free to use, discard, or rework any of the items for their own games.

So I'll have a blanket disclaimer explaining that none of the material should be construed as official or directly in line with established timelines.

[Olefin]

I agree that we should have a tag on articles like that

now if an article is directly in support of canon that could be different (for instance if one of the GDW authors hears about the fanzine and wants to contribute an article)

As for articles like Matt's - I loved it and even if it contradicted canon in some ways it is perfect for a fanzine. Its his view on Twilight 2000 as a fan - and is something we can use for campaigns in our own worlds.

Face it - the canon stopped in early 2001 with the exception of a few Challenge Magazine articles here and there that are later

Thus anything with a tag after May or so of 2001 has no "this contradicts canon" as we all know that 2300AD is only one possible future per what GDW said themselves.

Plus, as every module stated, the referee - i..e us - has considerable latitude to modify information no only within the modules but also within the sourcebooks themselves, even to the point of ignoring modules based on events in their campaigns.

That alone would mean that canon is what you make of it within your own campaign.

What the fanzine needs to say is that these articles represent our campaigns, which are based on canon, and as such they do deviate from canon in various ways and shouldnt be taken by anyone as canon that is gospel in all campaigns.

The 49th is a classic example - What Jason wrote is very good and informative and can be used as is or pieces can be used. Now that doesnt mean it canon in any way. But its a great read and a great piece of fan literature.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Plus, as every module stated, the referee - i..e us - has considerable latitude to modify information no only within the modules but also within the sourcebooks themselves, even to the point of ignoring modules based on events in their campaigns.

That alone would mean that canon is what you make of it within your own campaign.

Targan's game with the Soviets Lublin's command being destroyed by Po's group or my group killing the Black Baron are perfect examples. Each would require the "Canon" return to Europe series to be modified.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Grimace

I won't put directly contradictory material in the same issue, and I'll do my best not to put contradictory material in back-to-back issues either.

For myself, I don't see this as any sort of problem. I actually think that having two articles about the same topic but with different points of view can be more enlightening than having them spaced several issues apart.
Having the two articles in the same issue just opens up more food for thought and the editor (i.e. in this case Grimace) can but a small Editor's Note at the start of the second articles saying that e.g "For a different perspective on the same topic we have the following article..."

Personally, I like to see the different sides being argued and putting two or more articles into one issue or over the following issues isn't so much 'contradictory' for me as much as it is 'more exposure to different ideas' (if that makes any sense).
Just some thoughts.