Why the obsession with Canon...?

[Cessna]

White Wolf fans. Star Trek fans. Star Wars fans. Forgotten Realms fans. Tekumel fans.

The list goes on and on. All obsessed with canon and consistancy.

"Thou shalt never violate canon!"

What the hell, if it's a good story, tell it. It's all made up anyway...





(My mini-rant for the day)

[Phelps]

With god as my witness I clicked on this thread thinking it was about Conan.

Of course, there's Conan Canon, and damn that could make for a confusing subject header.

Anyway, the fannish obsession with canon often boils down to good old fashion geekery ... Some fans get their jollies by pointing out mistakes. Some just treat it as a gentlemanly game, others get downright nasty and gloaty and crowy about it.

I try to be tolerant. For the REALLY hardcore geek, pointing out the mistakes of others may be the only pleasure life offers, I fear. {shudder}

[Balbinus]

It's not an rpg thing, it's a fan thing.

Hard core fans obsess on canon, not sure why.

My heartfelt and pedantic thanks though to both you and Phelps for spelling the word correctly when so few hereabouts do.

[Bahama'at]

It's like being a player in a game where the GM constantly changes the rules or background - then says he's doing it "for the sake of the story".

The sake of the story only works as an argument when I'm told to expect it, and I have fun going with it. If one or both of these are not true then things become problematic.

[Metallian]

Some people find that stories are enhanced by virtue of having a rich context and backdrop...they're not just stories, they're parts of a greater story.

Just as you (presumably) wouldn't want an inconsistency to crop up in a novel, fans of canon and continuity don't want an inconsistency to crop up in the big uber-story.


Then there's the fun of immersing oneself in a "shared world," which gives you a common frame of reference when discussing things with other fans, which is fun in its own right. The world seems more "real," or more "believable" (subject to any fantastic assumptions necessary to support the basic premises) if it's consistent.

That's how I see it, anyway. I'm not a big stickler for it in my gaming, but I'm really big on it in fiction.

The Metallian

[Jesse Custer]

Sometimes, not following canon means that you may invalidate future supplements. Less books is not good (for most gamers).

[Metallian]

Originally posted by Metallian
Some people find that stories are enhanced by virtue of having a rich context and backdrop...they're not just stories, they're parts of a greater story.


To provide a concrete example, when I'm reading an issue of X-Men, I don't think of it as just "a story about the X-Men," I think of it as "an X-Men-related part of the story of the Marvel Universe."

Marvel's been moving away from that, BTW, and that's part of why I've been less enthusiastic about X-Men lately.

Anyway, I'm sure it's the same with White Wolf and so on.

The Metallian

[Blackberry]

Star Trek fans are generally obsessed with continuity to begin with. Violating canon is sort of the biggest possible continuity error.

[Nobody]

Is it that hard to write a story that is consistent to what has come before?

I like how the Japaneese handle a lot of it. If you watch a series, say Tenchi, then watch Tenchi in Toyko, or Tenchi Universe, You know that there is going to bed a "reset" of sorts, the characters will be familiar, but not nessesaraly the same backstory, or how they decide to aproach a problem.

Then you get things like Captain America 2, splitting of things, and sloppy retconning. It is irritating, and don't get me started on "Crisis" level "fixes" that do more to confuse, and after six months is ignored anyway for the sake of the story.

[Bahama'at]

Originally posted by Cessna
"Thou shalt never violate canon!"

"... without good reason".

Changes in backstory - for good reasons (like eliminating overt racist references or political biases as was the case for a couple of World of Darkness books) is not a bad thing and the fandom understand this and agree with it generally speaking.

Changes the add to or elaborate existing backstory are also generally accepted. People don't always know the whole story of every factor, secondary character, or niggling detail at the time the original story takes place. Flashback episodes of Angel and Spike's backstory changed facts but added more context to their relationship so it was okay.

What the hell, if it's a good story, tell it.

Define, objectively in a way that everyone will agree with, a "good" story. :)

That's the hard part isn't it?

- Ma'at

[Magdalene Crumbs]

<B>Is it that hard to write a story that is consistent to what has come before? </B>

That really depends on what has come before. Think about how many hours of Star Trek there are.

Sure, you can get the Trek Encyclopedia and the timeline, but as the hardcore Trek geeks will tell you, those are only _nearly_ definititive, and contain speculation and (gasp) omissions.

And then you'll fail to notice some detail passed off in some episode you saw six years ago, a detail that wasn't noted in the reference books, and BAM - two hundred frothing, angry, HOW-DARE-YOU emails are in your inbox.

I'm not _guessing_ about this, btw :)

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Cessna
What the hell, if it's a good story, tell it.

That's the way I handle it. LOTR, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. Any game I run will be based on the setting, will probably follow most of the setting's events as depicted on film, but I reserve the GMing right to do whatever the hell I want in my game, as long as my players and I have a hella good time playing.

It's a game, after all. Having fun should be all that matters.

[alexandria2000]

In my Exalted games I violate setting canon until it screams for Mommy.

[Sad Ma'am Saddam]

The Can-Can Conan Coney Island Cannon Canon Conundrum!

Say that 10 times fast.

Sad Ma'am

[Phelps]

<B>It's not an rpg thing, it's a fan thing. </B>

That's what Cessna and I said, too :)

<B>
Hard core fans obsess on canon, not sure why.

My heartfelt and pedantic thanks though to both you and Phelps for spelling the word correctly when so few hereabouts do.</B>

For my part: You're welcome. But was that a <I>deliberate</I> irony? Please say yes. Lie if necessary.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by Magdalene Crumbs
<B>Is it that hard to write a story that is consistent to what has come before? </B>

That really depends on what has come before. Think about how many hours of Star Trek there are.

Sure, you can get the Trek Encyclopedia and the timeline, but as the hardcore Trek geeks will tell you, those are only _nearly_ definititive, and contain speculation and (gasp) omissions.

And then you'll fail to notice some detail passed off in some episode you saw six years ago, a detail that wasn't noted in the reference books, and BAM - two hundred frothing, angry, HOW-DARE-YOU emails are in your inbox.

I'm not _guessing_ about this, btw :)

There is making mistakes, and violating whole streches of character, I forgive the former and lament the latter.

Wolverine is a good example of both.

[Balbinus]

Originally posted by Phelps
<B>It's not an rpg thing, it's a fan thing. </B>

That's what Cessna and I said, too :)

<B>
Hard core fans obsess on canon, not sure why.

My heartfelt and pedantic thanks though to both you and Phelps for spelling the word correctly when so few hereabouts do.</B>

For my part: You're welcome. But was that a <I>deliberate</I> irony? Please say yes. Lie if necessary.

Absolutely :-)

[Magdalene Crumbs]

<B>There is making mistakes, and violating whole streches of character, I forgive the former and lament the latter. </B>

Well, but there's also a third option, which is to say that such a minor detail being contradicted _isn't a mistake,_ and isn't important enough to even comment on or spend a moment's thought on. When a geek fusses over a point of trivia, the geek alone is in error.

[Phelps]

<B>Absolutely :-)</B>

May the deity of your choice or the impersonal cycles of the universe work in your favor.

[Qusoor]

Originally posted by Cessna
White Wolf fans. Star Trek fans. Star Wars fans. Forgotten Realms fans. Tekumel fans.

You haven't seen anything until you get PG Wodehouse fans. Fistfights are started over whether the Drones Club is its own series or an offshoot of the club Bertie Wooster visited. Is it possible to catch a swan in the manner Jeeves did in the very first short story?

Want there to be blood on the floor at a meeting of Holmes enthusiasts? Ask where Watson got shot in the Afghanistan campaign.

[reedins]

Originally posted by Qusoor
Want there to be blood on the floor at a meeting of Holmes enthusiasts? Ask where Watson got shot in the Afghanistan campaign.

Wait, don't tell me, it was...Afghanistan!

No?

Canon as a common frame of reference is the biggest thing, I think. If you have a wonderful story very loosely based on Star Wars that you and your friends are playing through, and then a new player joins after you tell them that you are playing Star Wars, it is a lot easier for them to quickly grasp what's going on if you haven't changed "canon" too much. If they have to go, "Wait, you mean Han Solo is a paid assassin of the Emperor in this universe?" it makes it more difficult.

Hm, that seems badly put and may not get my point across. I'll think about it.

[David Johansen]

In answer to the original question:

Portability

The only advantage I can see to using a liscenced setting is that people know what you mean when you say "The Enterprise" or "A Light Sabre".

Mucking with the canon limits the ability of the liscenced setting's function as common language.

[Mant]

Often I think inconsitencies crop up becuase the writer(s) are much less obsessive about the details than the fans. Particulalry, although not exclusively, in any shared world situation.

It doesn't mean they care less about the setting or characters, but they probably care less about strict continuity than telling the story they want. A lot of the trivia probably often just isn't important to them.

It also isn't important to the vast majority of people reading/watching/playing/whatever either. Just the people who do care tend to be the ones who discuss the subject on the net, so net forums get vocal about it.

Mant

[jachilli]

Originally posted by Balbinus
Hard core fans obsess on canon, not sure why.

"Fan" is short for "fanatic." Canon is the coin of the realm.

This is where I segue into games as PoMo art and simultaneously bash myself for positing that games are art, thereby making my argument PoMo in and of itself, turning the world into a big Moebius strip of my own logic. When the smoke clears, I am gone from the world, and the world never remembers that I existed at all...

...which was a Vampire power before I took over development and subsequently eliminated it from the game, thus re-Moebius-stripping the world, just so it all begins again.

Regards,
Justin

[committed hero]

Can't believe no one has cited Traveller (apologies if I missed it). Five "official" milieux representing over 1200 years of backstory, one alternate Imperium setting, one company whose materials were de-canonized (Judges Guild) and another company whose material is in limbo (Digest Group) - officially decanonized but still relied upon as valid. And the flamewars: near-c rocks as weapons, the economic viability of pirates in the OTU, how to defend a star system from invasion. Warms my heart just thinking about it.

My take on canon as applied to RPGs is this: GMs want published worlds to be cohesive. If someone has to spend significant amounts of time rehashing things in a published work, the rest of the book feels . . . less valid somehow. The conviction of keeping with things that aren't changed lessens, and some folks will wonder why they didn't just write everything from scratch.

I don't know enough about Living campaigns but I would be interesting in hearing thoughts about whether they are good or bad for canon compliance.

[PatP]

Canon is just a tool. Use it or not. In my experience, many gamers don't bother to learn game canon ("A Venture? What Venture? Oh, you said ''Ventrue', right?"). Also, many gamers enjoy "alternate world" takes on popularly known canon ("This campaign is 'Star Wars', except Luke blew it and the Death Star destroyed the Rebel Alliance base at Yavin 4 -- so now it's 50 years in the future and you're the crew of a beat-up freighter captained by an elderly, guilt-ridden Han Solo...")

[Bradford C. Walker]

Originally posted by Cessna
White Wolf fans. Star Trek fans. Star Wars fans. Forgotten Realms fans. Tekumel fans.

The list goes on and on. All obsessed with canon and consistancy.

"Thou shalt never violate canon!"

What the hell, if it's a good story, tell it. It's all made up anyway...


Not to pick on you, Cessna, but...

Because I don't want to play in your Star Wars Galaxy, or Bob's, or Jen's or anyone other than the Star Wars Galaxy. (To pick one of the examples for illustrative purposes.)

[vgunn]

Its the Common-Sense rule that I apply.

I don't mind the breaking of canon, its the scope of the departure.

[Eilonwy]

Hmm. I have never actually encountered this problem (in person. On RPGnet of course I read about it quite a bit.) Both I, and other GMs I've played with, subscribe to the clockmaker theory of existing-setting GMing. Namely, you turn the clock back and change one thing (or a few.) That one thing changes canon a great deal. The same villains and situations may pop up at the same times as they would, or not. Canon before the change exists; canon after the change is your bitch.

Examples:
In my Buffy game, Buffy was vamped in Season 3's "Helpless" and became the Big Bad.

In my friend's Marvel Universe campaign, he just started with X-Men #1 with different X-Men. The same threats showed up at first, but the universe diverged rapidly.

In my other friend's Wheel of Time game (before the game came out -- we homebrewed it in a very bored time), he just inserted our characters into the canon and let us mess it up. Since I had the Min-visions, and the only other character was I think possibly ta'veren (we didn't get to choose whether or not we were) we messed it up pretty darn well. (Let me tell you, at some point you look around and realize OOC that because you exist, Egwene and Nynaeve are both stuck in a'dams forever, and you feel kinda guilty.)

[Allistor Preist]

Cannon (in theory at least) is consistancy. Consitancy helps many stories.

Is Batman a killer or does he avoid killing at all cost? The importants of staying true to this is tied in with how we (the fans) expect him to handle a situation. We cannot be shocked by anything he does if he is inconsistant.

Now in RPG's specifically, we are introduced to a canan setting. There are main two reasons people don't like deviation (imho of course, I cannot read the minds of gamers yet).

One is consistancy. "For the story" is used as often as "I am only doing what my character would do" to justify some crazy, crazy things. Canin is used to provide an expectation of how the world should behave. To these people caynon can be changed, as long as they know ahead of time how the world is supposed to act.

The other is, some people just like the setting. I don't play shadowrun for it's great rules. So, if you play the game for the setting, then someone mucking about with it is kida counter productive.

Now when people stress for canun answers from the game companies, they want a refrence point, even if it is thier plan all along to deviate from it.

Anyway that's just my take, if you want to know why people like me are obsessed with consistancy in a gaming world, well that just boils down to taste.

[Marco]

I'm an Epson man, myself ... it doesn't concern me all that much.

For those "play in the acutal universe" guys, what do you do when the Canon itself is contradictory?

-Marco

[MartinB]

There is a difference between "canon", "setting" and "meta-plot". I just wanted to throw this randomly into the discussion, because I'm already discussing stuff like that back over in the "Justin on canon"-Thread and to do it here at the same time is positively not within the limitations of my mental and intelectual carpacity.

Cheers,
Martin

[The Ent]

When it comes to the Conan Canon (or is that the Conan Cannon: the ultimate weapon!!!) I'm a fanatic, and that's that...
(allthough I've got a VERY soft spot for the first movie)

When it comes to games, less so. When I gm'ed Forgotten Realms for instance, I made it more or less my own...

I do dislike metaplots in games, allthough I rarely contemplate using ready-made settings these days anyway...except Conan d20 of course! :)

[Gavken]

Originally posted by Cessna
"Thou shalt never violate canon!"


It wasn't me officer violating that canon

[Allistor Preist]

Originally posted by Marco
I'm an Epson man, myself ... it doesn't concern me all that much.

For those "play in the acutal universe" guys, what do you do when the Canon itself is contradictory?

-Marco

Weep openly.

Again it depends on the contradictions. In WW the contradictions on things like Golconda and what happened 40,000 years ago aren't that big of a deal. The most painful contradictions are the here and now ones. If running the game, I try to fix the problem.

Contradictions on things like why who runs NY city get a little more frustrating. To be honest, most setting have some inconsistancies, it's just a matter of wether the ones they have bug the particular player.

[theCimmerian]

In RPGs, violating 'Canon' is par for the course. You're making your own story, so muck with what you want.

With written works, it's different. When an aspiring writers creates garbage and sends it to a publisher, the chance that it will end up on bookshelves is relatively small. It will probably be rejected outright or put through a long edit and revision process before publication. However, if an aspiring writer attaches their story to a well known franchise, a publisher might print it because they know fans of the series will pick it up. This seems to happen entirely too often.

So mostly I dislike works outside the original written canon because they usually suck.

I can't think of a single Star Wars novel that was worth reading. Weis and Hickman's Dragonlance books are not great literature or even great fantasy, but they are head and shoulders - and chest, hips, legs, feet, and a mountain - above almost every other Dragonlance book. I've read quite a few Shadowrun books because I love the setting, but only the ones by Mel Odom are worth a second read. etc... etc...

[dalmagar]

I don'tmind departing from canon,as long as it doesn't move so far from the original idea to make a big impact. If you want to make a star wars game, but Luke didn't blow up the deathstar as was given as an example, thats fine.

If you want a Star wars game where the force is actually blessings from God and you have to follow his orders or lose them...well, thats not Star Wars then, is it.

[Cossack]

Originally posted by David Johansen
The only advantage I can see to using a liscenced setting is that people know what you mean when you say "The Enterprise" or "A Light Sabre".

The scary thing here is it took me a coulple minutes to figure out what the heck you meant by "A Light Sabre."

The word is "lightsaber."

(The references to Victorian-error literature in one of the previous posts put me in the wrong frame of mind.);)

[Cessna]

Originally posted by Bradford C. Walker
Not to pick on you, Cessna, but...

Because I don't want to play in your Star Wars Galaxy, or Bob's, or Jen's or anyone other than the Star Wars Galaxy. (To pick one of the examples for illustrative purposes.)



Well, unless George Lucas himself is GMing for you, you aren't going to get that.

(And his game would be pretty lame anyway. Greedo shoots first, Jar Jar Binks, yadda, yadda)

So unless you can get the game's creator (the odds of which are pretty slim, unless MAR Barker GMs for you) you're going to get canon glitches. Why not just roll with it?

[Bradford C. Walker]

Originally posted by Cessna
Well, unless George Lucas himself is GMing for you, you aren't going to get that.

(And his game would be pretty lame anyway. Greedo shoots first, Jar Jar Binks, yadda, yadda)

So unless you can get the game's creator (the odds of which are pretty slim, unless MAR Barker GMs for you) you're going to get canon glitches. Why not just roll with it?
With regard to Star Wars, I can get that; the hierarchy of SW canon is well-known within fandom, so keeping it straight is very easy to accomplish. Other properties, as you noted, shall vary.

For all such properties, the key to recall is that the primary appeal of using a licensed RPG is to partake of that property somehow; in the context of tabletop RPGs, this means being able to enter that setting and interact with it in a meaningful manner- all the while maintaining the integrity of the source materials from which the RPG derives its existence. This means not doing things that would violate the canon, yet finding a means that allows players to do the sorts of things that drew them to the property in the first place. I addressed this very point not a week or so ago in another thread; I refer you to that answer for more details.

[Flower of December]

Since the Prism Pentad is canon, I'm happy to say that my gaming group is in constat violation of canon. Sometimes it's got a place, and sometimes it gives us the prism pentad.

[Ben Brown]

Originally posted by Phelps
With god as my witness I clicked on this thread thinking it was about Conan.

Of course, there's Conan Canon, and damn that could make for a confusing subject header.


The Conan Canon is a touchy subject in and of itself.

[Sean M]

The worth that -I- see in canon is:

I bought into this series(Vtm, star wars, star trek) because of either/both A)The consistantly good talent involved with it. B)The setting which is consistantly intereasting. A consistant setting(Canon) supports B.

To have value to me, Canon should be set up so that even if an artist I don't paticularly like the work of is involved with it, it'll still be enjoyable because of the parts that the artist conformed to out of consistancy to the world. Therefore Canon should be focused on nessecitating the good elements of the work.

Example: If I liked vampire's canon, than even if I had a crappy GM who did conform to canon, at some point he'd have to bring in the elements that I like. Wheras a crappy GM who does not conform to canon never has to bring up the issues I like and has more room to bring in his stuff which annoys me.

This isn't a personal example, because by and large I prefer what my GM comes up with to most any published work, and I don't paticulrly like most I've read of vampire. But if there was a setting you -really- loved, you'd probably want a GM, even one that you like the ideas of, to conform to the important elements of your beloved setting.

Also, it stops setting-drift. The new star Wars films don't pay as much attention to Canon as the older films, and they feel significantly more different than one of the old star films compared to another of the old star wars films. If you liked the old star wars films and arn't paticularly receptive to new spins, this is important.

[Caduceus]

I find the concept of "canon" disturbing. I brings a bizarre sense of a cult into the fan community. "Canon" means the books of the Bible accepted as the word of God or sets of rules sent down from a higher power.

Star Trek does not have canon. Star Wars things are not canon. "Official" is a much less creepy word.

[Flawless Glory of Silence]

What about official, non-canon stuff (e.g. the Locust Crusade in Exalted).

[CADmonkey]

Originally posted by Blackberry
Star Trek fans are generally obsessed with continuity to begin with. Violating canon is sort of the biggest possible continuity error. The wonderful irony is, Star Trek never had continuity to begin with! :p (and I'm not even talking about Star Trek: Enterprise)

[alexandria2000]

Originally posted by Flawless Glory of Silence
What about official, non-canon stuff (e.g. the Locust Crusade in Exalted).

Alchemicals did *not* happen in my Exalted world.

-hates 'em, sees no purpose for 'em, either A2K

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

I like the idea of the Locust Crusade, but not in my campaign. Ergo, it's not there. At all.

Anyways...

Canon is a term I think we ought to define here. In my view, Canon = "the entirety of what has come before, big and small, explained and unexplained. It can be violated, but only with good reasoning and explanation, please." But that's me.

Until we're all using the same definition, or can agree upon a common definition, this discussion seems silly to me.

[Unscrambled Mage]

<B>It doesn't mean they care less about the setting or characters, but they probably care less about strict continuity than telling the story they want. A lot of the trivia probably often just isn't important to them. </B>

If we can't all agree that trivia is, by definition, trivial ... Well, we're just fucked :)

<B>I find the concept of "canon" disturbing. I brings a bizarre sense of a cult into the fan community. </B>

Sure, but it's right at home next to all the _other_ things that bring a bizarre sense of a cult into the fan community. And the religious connotations are hardly accidental. It's a very apt metaphor, given the fervor (and divisiveness) of many fans.

<B>"Canon" means the books of the Bible accepted as the word of God or sets of rules sent down from a higher power. </B>

Metaphor is not your enemy. Go on. Give it a hug.

[Phelps]

<B>Canon is a term I think we ought to define here. In my view, Canon = "the entirety of what has come before, big and small, explained and unexplained. It can be violated, but only with good reasoning and explanation, please." But that's me. </B>

It's just you. Canon is the stuff that the highest authority on the given question says is a correct answer. It's a metaphor for "true" relgious documents recognized by the church, contrasted with untrue or dubious ones.

That's what makes it different from "official." If you have a property that only one party works on, there is only official stuff (the stuff that one party writes/makes) and unofficial or unauthorized stuff (like fan fiction). There's no need for the concept of canon, in that case. With only Yes and No, "canon" and "official" are synonymous except by connotation.

BUT ... With a licensed property, the distinction can creep in. There are (for example) lot of Star Trek novels out there that are fully authorized by paramount, completely legally licensed, and entirely in every sense official. They are not, however, canon, because Paramount makes it plain that each licensed Trek story doesn't take place in the "one true Trek universe." Lets pause for a chuckle at that notion. Anyway, the same is true for other licensed properties like Star Wars. You've got three categories of stuff:

(A) Canon material. The "true" stuff (true fiction! Whee!)
(B) Official Non-Canon. Licensed work not considered true.
(C) Unofficial material. Fanfic and the like.

But anyway, that's the distinction betwen canon and non-canon, and between canon and official.

I'm personally of the mind that the only people who should ever spend an instant caring about canon are those writers, artists, and other creative types who are required by their contracts to care. The idea of spending a moment caring about canon without being PAID to care about canon is abhorrent and silly to me.

[La Maupin]

Originally posted by Stephen Henderson-Grady
I find the concept of "canon" disturbing. I brings a bizarre sense of a cult into the fan community. "Canon" means the books of the Bible accepted as the word of God or sets of rules sent down from a higher power.

Star Trek does not have canon. Star Wars things are not canon. "Official" is a much less creepy word.
"Canon," sez the dictionary, is "a group of works generally accepted as representing a field" or "the works of a writer generally accepted as authentic." If you take a higher-level course on literary criticism, you'll find that of the ten most hotly debated questions of English literature, in all ten of them the word "canon" is tossed about as if it were the word "the."

[La Maupin]

Originally posted by Phelps
BUT ... With a licensed property, the distinction can creep in. There are (for example) lot of Star Trek novels out there that are fully authorized by paramount, completely legally licensed, and entirely in every sense official. They are not, however, canon, because Paramount makes it plain that each licensed Trek story doesn't take place in the "one true Trek universe." Lets pause for a chuckle at that notion. Anyway, the same is true for other licensed properties like Star Wars. You've got three categories of stuff:

(A) Canon material. The "true" stuff (true fiction! Whee!)
(B) Official Non-Canon. Licensed work not considered true.
(C) Unofficial material. Fanfic and the like.
And then there's Star Wars. Funny subject that. SW has four levels by this:

A: Canon. The movies, the novelizations of the movies, the screenplays of the movies, the comic book adaptations of the movies, and stuff written directly about the movies.

B: Quasi-Canon. The Extended Universe. SW novels are treated as "Historical fiction" in the SW universe - i.e. the events are true, but fictionalized to make better reading ("better" being a subject of debate in the case of the vast majority of EU authors).

C: Official material: These are the "Star Wars Infinities/Star Wars Tales" comic books. Officially licensed and a fun read, but not impinging on the canon storyline in any way.

D. Fanfiction. Is, well, fanfiction.

[Phelps]

<B>And then there's Star Wars. Funny subject that. SW has four levels by this: </B>

Entirely true (I'm responsible for a bit of Quasi-Canon SW material myself, in fact) but I figured my explanation was getting long-winded as it was so I glossed past that :)

[entropy402]

Originally posted by Metallian
Marvel's been moving away from that, BTW, and that's part of why I've been less enthusiastic about X-Men lately.If by "lately", you mean since late 1996, I agree with you.

If you are talking about New X-Men or anything, I wouldn't even know anything about that, being the only true Marvel line I read anymore is Exiles.

[Metallian]

Originally posted by entropy402
If by "lately", you mean since late 1996, I agree with you.

If you are talking about New X-Men or anything, I wouldn't even know anything about that, being the only true Marvel line I read anymore is Exiles.

I was mostly referring to New X-Men, where Magneto can take over New York City, and not only do the Avengers not notice, the characters in the other X-titles don't notice! Argh. It really detracts from my enjoyment.

The Metallian

[entropy402]

Originally posted by Metallian
...and not only do the Avengers not notice, the characters in the other X-titles don't notice! Argh. It really detracts from my enjoyment. Marvel has always had less consistancy between lines than 1993 White Wolf.

[Ranko]

Originally posted by alexandria2000
In my Exalted games I violate setting canon until it screams for Mommy.

As someone said on Exalted - PCs are the metaplot.

back to main topic - you haven't broken a metaplot until the Black Ops Ninja Assasination Squad of Death arrives down ropes from a black, unmarked alien tech helicopter.

[JDCorley]

Originally posted by Metallian
I was mostly referring to New X-Men, where Magneto can take over New York City, and not only do the Avengers not notice, the characters in the other X-titles don't notice! Argh. It really detracts from my enjoyment.

This actually makes me very happy. This way I'm confident that nobody will come in and trample on The Pulse or Daredevil just for the sake of crossover.

"L'chaim, fat ass."



Edit: It just occurred to me you might not have read that issue and might think I was talking to you. I'm not. I'm just making a Daredevil reference. :)

More editing thoughts: This probably stems from the time when I started reading comics when you couldn't buy a Marvel comic without Wolverine being in it, and I hated his guts.

[Mant]

Originally posted by entropy402
Marvel has always had less consistancy between lines than 1993 White Wolf.

For pretty much the same reason I think. The guy telling one story doesn't want it shat on just to be consistent with some other guys story.

I like this, but clearly some people don't.

Mant

[Secret Cow Level]

As far as games are concerned, canon is important to me only if I want it to be. If I have an idea I like I'll go with it and published setting material be dammed. Of course if I'm running a game set in a licensed properity and take major liberties with the setting the rest of my players need to be onboard with my ideas or else the game isn't going to get to far!

[Topher]

I'll throw Doctor Who into the mix.

The BBC's stance right now is "we make this stuff, we license other people to make this stuff, it's all official. It's up to you to decide what's 'real' and what's not." (note that this may change if the new TV series is successful)

So the TV series, the novels published by Virgin, the novels published by the BBC, the Telos novellas, the Fig Finish audios and short stories, the webcasts, the Target novelizations, the gazillion comic strips - they're all potentially "canon". Roll your own.

What makes this cool is when we get all these neat layers of intertextuality as a result. Like, for instance, when a group of authors and fans creates a book of short stories (Perfect Timing) and sells it for charity, but it's not licensed by the BBC. Technically it's fanfiction, non-official. But then characters and ideas from those stories have turned up later in official sources, retroactively *making* them official.

This is the cue for some die-hard trad Who fan to come in and say that only the TV series counts and it's long-dead anyway. :rolleyes:

Topher

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

Originally posted by Topher v2.0
This is the cue for some die-hard trad Who fan to come in and say that only the TV series counts and it's long-dead anyway. :rolleyes:

Topher

Pretend I'm a die-hard Doctor Who fan for a second.

Only the TV series counts and it's long-dead anyway.

Okay, stop pretending now.

[Metallian]

Originally posted by Mant
For pretty much the same reason I think. The guy telling one story doesn't want it shat on just to be consistent with some other guys story.

I like this, but clearly some people don't.


No, no, it's "some other guy's chapter of the same story." :D

The Metallian

[Mant]

Originally posted by Metallian
No, no, it's "some other guy's chapter of the same story." :D


OK, I know there was a smiley, but to answer it seriously, just becuase two stories share settings, or even characters, does not make them just chapters in the same story.

Loads of authors use the same characters and settings in different stories.

Mant

[MartinB]

Originally posted by Mant
Loads of authors use the same characters and settings in different stories.


Is this my cue now to say

"But it's all the same brand, so it implies a certain concistancy and coherent overall setting and meta-plot."

?

:D

Sorry, I'm tired and will go to bed now.
'night all.

Martin

[Metallian]

Originally posted by Mant
OK, I know there was a smiley, but to answer it seriously, just becuase two stories share settings, or even characters, does not make them just chapters in the same story.

Loads of authors use the same characters and settings in different stories.


All a matter of perspective...some people (like me) consider everything published by Marvel and sharing the same settings and characters to be one big story, "The Story of the Marvel Universe."

Unless, of course, it is explicilty stated to be otherwise (like, for example, the "Ultimates" line or "Earth X"). That's an option that allows for creative freedom without "tainting" the primary storyline.

But I'm well-known (on Tangency, anyway) as a big continuity freak, so bear that in mind. :D

The Metallian

[Mant]

Originally posted by Metallian
All a matter of perspective...some people (like me) consider everything published by Marvel and sharing the same settings and characters to be one big story, "The Story of the Marvel Universe."

Surely all you can have at best is "a sequence of events that don't actually fit together in the Marvel universe"? :)

A story to me would imply some sort of greater coherency and overall narrative. For a storline to be tainted, wouldn't there actually have to be a storyline in the first place, and not a bunch of sometimes intersecting and sometimes contradicting ones?

If you are repeatedly given something that doesn't fit together, why keep assuming it is supposed to fit together?

Mant

[Metallian]

Originally posted by Mant
Surely all you can have at best is "a sequence of events that don't actually fit together in the Marvel universe"? :)

A story to me would imply some sort of greater coherency and overall narrative. For a storline to be tainted, wouldn't there actually have to be a storyline in the first place, and not a bunch of sometimes intersecting and sometimes contradicting ones?

If you are repeatedly given something that doesn't fit together, why keep assuming it is supposed to fit together?
\

Well, it was never perfect, but it all used to fit together well enough for most purposes. As in, some things contradicted other things, but for the most part they were either easily-ignored, easily explained (after the fact), or things you could just chalk up to author error and let slide. (I accept the "weird aging" and other temporal warping as a genre convention, so that doesn't count.)

Nowadays there are just blatant contradictions going on all over the place and it's become extremely hard to swallow. Some people see it as "being free from the shackles of continuity and crossovers" whereas I see it as "diminishing the work." It's hard for me to take a story seriously when the world is conquered by a time-travelling army in one comic, and nobody even mentions it in the other comics. (Meanwhile, I am perfectly capable of "taking people flying around in yellow spandex" seriously. I see no contradiction in this. :D)

The Metallian

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Metallian
Nowadays there are just blatant contradictions going on all over the place and it's become extremely hard to swallow. Some people see it as "being free from the shackles of continuity and crossovers" whereas I see it as "diminishing the work." It's hard for me to take a story seriously when the world is conquered by a time-travelling army in one comic, and nobody even mentions it in the other comics. (Meanwhile, I am perfectly capable of "taking people flying around in yellow spandex" seriously. I see no contradiction in this. :D)

Me too. Though I always had trouble accepting the fact that the X-books took place in the same world as the rest of the Marvel Universe.

You know, Marvel getting rid of the 'Marvel Universe' idea is probably another reason why I've dropped Marvel books almost completely and read DC material instead.

That said, in my gaming whilst I love canon and continuity I'm quite happy to change it where I see fit and play in other persons games where this also applies. As long as it doesn't go beyond what I find acceptable.

I've played in Star Wars games for instance where all the Gungans were wiped out and where Death Star II was built near Kash'yyk, not the moon of Endor (and thus Ewoks never existed).

[Metallian]

Originally posted by Quasar
Me too. Though I always had trouble accepting the fact that the X-books took place in the same world as the rest of the Marvel Universe.

You know, Marvel getting rid of the 'Marvel Universe' idea is probably another reason why I've dropped Marvel books almost completely and read DC material instead.

That said, in my gaming whilst I love canon and continuity I'm quite happy to change it where I see fit and play in other persons games where this also applies. As long as it doesn't go beyond what I find acceptable.


Brother! :D

The Metallian

[PhishStyx]

Originally posted by Tiama'at
It's like being a player in a game where the GM constantly changes the rules or background - then says he's doing it "for the sake of the story".



I've got a friend who does this constantly, rewriting the same settings repeatedly usually with worsening results each time, remaking character backgrounds, even rewriting what we've already played out so that things I've said sound awful (for instance).

[GungHo]

I'm not a canon-abiding person. "but, in book X, it says W is Y" Well, in my game, W is Z. If you can't handle that, then play someone else's game. I don't care if a new fancy dancy book came out and said that Tremere was a crossdresser. He's not in my game. I may incorporate something from that fancy dancy book, but you're here to play a game, not read a book.

The other side to it is that, well... if you're going to change canon THAT much, like making Gandalf a Vampire, making Frodo a Werewolf, and making Aragorn a HIT Mark, then there does come a point where you ask, "why are you even couching this as a Lord of the Rings game? You'd have done less work if you'd have just made it all up from scratch."

[Mortaneus]

Originally posted by theCimmerian
I can't think of a single Star Wars novel that was worth reading.

I generally agree with this assessment, except for one book. I, Jedi. It friggin rocked.

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Mortaneus
I generally agree with this assessment, except for one book. I, Jedi.

I wouldn't. I loved the Tim Zahn books, and whilst I stopped reading SW novels some time ago if ever another one appears with his name on it I am so there.

[The King In Yellow]

The Locust Crusade was tricky. They seem to not want to advance the storyline (dare I say metaplot) any from "The Moment In Time" where all the books come from.

The LC does that. It says "OK, now, the big head pops up and the battle begins". But that pushes the storyline ahead.

WW took an excellent out. By saying "This is a possiblity, not a canon advancment in the timeline" it makes it cool. Alchemicals seem to be a very...contriversial type of Exalt. While many people don't like aspects of this or that Exalt, a number of people activly dislike Alchemicals. By taking the possibility line, they avoid putting them in prominantly.

Vampire had a metaplot, but not a bad one. if you used NPC X, Y, or Z, something may happen with him. But most of what happens is unlikly to affect your game. Ravnos die? Mostly, but some survived. All in your city could have, no prob. most cities on the east coast fell to the Sabbat. Not all. Was yours one that did not? No problem. Only the death of the Tremere Antitribu was truly invasive. Now, if you choose to use Theo Bell or Aisling Strubridge, you need to worry about metaplot, becouse now your playing with WWs story. Not a problem, really, and you can make Theo a sabbat spy or have him be struck dead by jan for his impudance, no problem. But when you use setting NPCs, you deal with the metaplot. But bell is just an archon. Sturbridge is just a Tremere in a city. No reason they have to be important at all.


This is different from, say, Star Wars, where if your PC cornered and killed Darth Vador, that does kind of mess things up. The difference is, Darth Vador, in the setting, is the Emporor's accessable right hand man. He is critically important, and for the Empire to fall in the terms of the movie storyline, he has to survive to point X.


Neither the Camarilla or Sabbat have a Darth Vador. Oh sure, there may be someone like that (in my game, for the Camarilla, it is a Ventrue named Austin) but no one you could _not_ take out.
Ditto exalted, with it's moment in time, it has Darth Vadors (Ma-Ha-Suchi, Mask of Winters) but they can fall becouse there will never be an offical canon "Death of Ma-Ha-Suchi"

Deadlands had a bit more of a metaplot then Vampire or Exalted, to give anouther non-WW example. The movments of the Civil War, The battles of the rail wars, all ultimatly had to be watched by the GM for metaplot. And don't go near Gamorrah. Still, if you did not use the GWW you could be fine, and just assume the civil war continues. But it kinda sets MAJOR setting facits offlimits untless you want to defy canon, and HoE was even worse.

The best balance seems to be either the Exalted Appoach (no Metaplot) or Vampire (metaplot, but mostly the further adventures of X and Y which won't impact people's games who don't use X or Y). Deadlands and Star Wars is tougher. However, Deadlands gives LOTS of room to work avoiding the facets that are difficult to deal with, while Star Wars, well, is a tougher nut to crack, since major victories and defeats are defined by the movies, and any deviation will send ripples.

So where was Watson shot in the afganistan compaign?

[Yamo]

Why the obsession with Canon...?

Beats me.

(How's that for a useless post?) :p

[The King In Yellow]

mainly?

Because it gives us common ground. If I start talking about how exicing the battle with the Xaxian Federation in my Star Wars game is, it won't mean the same as talking about my player's battles with the Empire are.

Because it gives new players coming in something to expect. If I say I am running star wars, and they show up, and I say "In my world, there is no empire, the rebels are fighting the Borg" that kinda throws them for a loop.

Becoause it gives common rules. If someone asks how combos work in exalted, and in my game I don't require them(1), I can either give the canon answer and explain it, or I can say "you don't actually need combos to use more then one charm in a round". True in my game, but not in canon. Then people argue about it. This happens with KOTE alot, since they put many rulings in a vampire book.

In order to discuss things like setting, rules, and player recuritment with people outside our group (why we are here, yes?) we need canon for common ground.

Does not mean people suck for making other stuff, but you know

(1) I do require combos, this is an example.

[exmachina]

When I run my games, I don't give a flying FUCK about canon. I pick and choose, adapt and evolve, create whole-cloth.

When talking to other fans, however, Canon is a very important meeting place. Every one knows what you are talking about (if you have the books) andcan join in the discussion from continents away.