I suspect that this is a problem many GMs of many game systems have run into at one time or another:

GM: "I'd like to run a game in the Setting X, though I think I'm going to add a city here and introduce some social themes there, and. . ."

Canon Fan: "NO! If you're not using it EXACTLY AS WRITTEN, you're using it WRONG!"

That sounds pretty extreme, I assure you, though I've seen it happen more times than I'd care to recount. I received a similar response when asking certain questions about the Scarred Lands recently (much to my chagrin) and I'm starting to think that buying into the setting full tilt was a mistake if "Why would you ever change it? It's perfect as written!" is going to be a commonplace response to exercising creativity.

This drove me crazy in FR 2e and I don't see it sitting well with me anytime soon.  

So, my question is, how do you deal with players who get overly excited when you, as the GM (or DM, if you prefer) add to or otherwise alter material for a given setting? In the past, I've simply explained to people that canon in the context of a RPG isn't binding (otherwise, it would be defeating the primary allure of RPGs) and that if they think is should be, then they really need to find another game to play in, because they'll hate mine.

It has come to my attention that, while effective, blunt honesty won't win me any admiration. This being the case, I'm examining better, more effective, ways to address the issue when/if it arises during actual play. So. . . how have you dealt with this issue in your own game and/or game groups?

I've never really had a problem with canon fanatics, but there have been situations where my players expect certain things and they have found that I have wandered of the reservation. It's the old "how much can you deviate from Star Wars before it ceases to be SW" problem.

Regards,
David R

I do something "in the spirit of" -- I've done Star Trek a lot that way; I don't know Star Trek *nearly* well enough to get the details right, but I can do a big,  utopian federation with ridge-headed bad-guys and transporters and phasers, and so-on just fine.

Same thing pretty much with any property that's based on fiction. I've tried to run Star Wars, and it's a no-go (not because of the fanatics, but because I'm always wondering whether or not I'm getting the world right).

Oddly, this doesn't work so well for historical games. I usually run Call of Cthulhu  modern day because I know how it works. I don't have enough 1920's details to get things right. I'm not a fidelity fanatic, but my feeling is that if I'm not going to do the homework to get the world pretty accurate, I might as well port it to fantasy or modern-day.

Cheers,
-E.

1) By generally avoiding settings which draw them. I don't often run a whole lot of games in setting based on media franchises.

There are a few I would consider running. Say, Farscape, which would pose an immediate problem in that it presumes that John Crichton is the ONLY man from Earth out in the cosmos. Which leads us to:

2) I have a general philosophy on "if nothing said that something didn't happen, then it might have." Further, just because common talk in a setting assumes something is true doesn't necessarily mean that what common wisdom holds is true. This is probably the biggest flaw with setting fanatics... they DO tend to assume that, until, of course, the author plainly contradicts themselves. Some fans aren't content to give the GM that much latitude. Which is too bad.

An example here is the common Wisdom that all Jedi but Obi Wan and Yoda died in the Rebellion era. Of course, it seems perfectly logical to me that there are OTHER Jedi hiding out... of course they aren't going to trumpet their presence, and some may have gone to extreme measures and went to extreme backwaters to hide out. Considering how kick-ass the Jedi are portrayed, it almost seems illogical to me that some wouldn't escape.

Anyway, some fans won't agree with me, and won't enjoy themselves playing in a game with my alterations, and I don't like playing in settings that don't give me enough latitude, and even I feel a bit dirty breaking with some canon. So I'd almost rather...

3) Make my own homage version of the setting which leaves me free of my own self doubt and that of others.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad1) By generally avoiding settings which draw them. I don't often run a whole lot of games in setting based on media franchises.

Well, sadly, most established RPG settings (e.g., Forgotten Realms, [Old] World of Darkness, etc) seem to develop an established canon (and, thus, inflexible fans) of their own over time. Which sucks, 'cause my day job prevents me for writing up my own settings at the current time

my players know i'll tweak stuff in established settings.  most "canon" things will probably be the same, but they won't bet on it.

i'm in -E.'s camp on CoC.  that's a setting i don't feel comfortable portraying properly, so i just switch to modern.  i know i could fake it with my group, but *i'd* know i wasn't portraying it accurately enough.  

(i was hoping for you to typo the thread title!  "cannon fanatics?  burden them with long load times!"  :haw:   never mind )

Quote from: beeberi'm in -E.'s camp on CoC.

I used to be, then I realized that historical accuracy in Lovecraft's work is only window dressing used to frame the completely alien. That is, at the end of the day, Lovecraft's Earth is no less fantasy than Greyhawk (unlike Greyhawk, however, its body of canon is wide open to expand upon).

Quote from: jdrakehI used to be, then I realized that historical accuracy in Lovecraft's work is only window dressing used to frame the completely alien. That is, at the end of the day, Lovecraft's Earth is no less fantasy than Greyhawk (unlike Greyhawk, however, its body of canon is wide open to expand upon).

Lovecraftian horror, for me, is far more scary when it takes place in "reality" than when it takes place in fantasy (either Greyhawk or a fictional 1920's earth).

I feel like small details, used judiciously, can really help ground a game (especially a horror game) in reality.

Getting the cost of a newspaper or a cup of coffee right isn't importance in its own sense (I'm not tracking the character's wealth or anything), but having no idea (for example) what regular things cost make it hard for me to throw in details that make the game more visceral and effective.

Back on topic: One of the things that people like about 3rd-party worlds is the depth and history of the place; the wealth of details, etc. If I were running a Hogwarts-a-like for a group of Harry Potter fans I'd want to spend a considerable amount of time making my near-potter-verse world rich in its own detail.

Harry Potter fanatics would never be satisfied, of course (either with my attempt at a potter-like game or with my best-effort rendition of the actual world) but I think I could do a decent magic-school type of game that felt a lot like Harry Potter... but it would be a heck of a lot of work.

If you're trying to use a cannon setting with cannon fanatics, but not worry about getting the details right, this approach won't help.

Cheers,
-E.

If I know one of my players is a Setting X fanboy and will bring that love for the setting into the game in a negative way then I probably wont use Setting X.  I have also encountered this problem, and I find it to be very aggravating.

If it happened today, though, I may try talking to the player about "helping out with the game" and "bringing his knowledge to the table."  I think that if I could find a constructive outlet for a player like that and acknowledge his knowledge of the setting I might be able to find some middle ground.

Quote from: -E.Lovecraftian horror, for me, is far more scary when it takes place in "reality" than when it takes place in fantasy (either Greyhawk or a fictional 1920's earth).

Well, my point was that Lovecraftain horror, by virtue of its very nature, doesn't take place in anything remotely resembling "reality". . . because, you know, "reality" isn't crawling with tentacled, godlike, horrors from beyond the boundaries of known space and time

QuoteI feel like small details, used judiciously, can really help ground a game (especially a horror game) in reality.

They can help ground you in an approximation of reality, which was my point. Such details would be the aforementioned "window dressing" that I alluded to. This is why the 3rd, hardcover, edition of CoC is my favorite -- it includes a huge collection of this window dressing.

I basically hate "canon".  I hate the whole idea of it, and I think it's probably one of the most poisonous behaviors in fandom, especially in a roleplaying game.  Maybe it's from being such a big fan of Doctor Who, a show which contradicts itself and twists any sense of continuity or canon to the point of breakage so many times that you'd pretty much have to be insane to try the kind of anal-retentive over-analysis that some fandoms seem to crave (which sort of explains Outpost Gallifrey . . .)

It's the "butterfly under glass" effect.  That thing was beautiful when it was flying around.  Once it's been captured and pinned down and spray with preservatives and hung on a wall or stuck in a book, categorized and organize, you've destroyed it.  It is no longer that beautiful thing it was, its just a sad attempt to hang on to a fleeting moment that should be enjoyed in it's place.

The way I see it, a bunch of place names and Mary Sues and episode synopsis don't really tell you anything about what a show or a game or a world is really all about.  What tells me what a world is all about are the concepts, the cultures, the themes, what dangers and adventures the PCs might face.  

The only thing you need to know about Doctor Who is that there's this guy, whose basically immortal, and he has a magic box that flies through time and space, and he and his friends have all sorts of exciting adventures every week.  That's it.  Everythng else is meaningless detail.  It's the kinds of stories and themes, like the Doctor's admiration for the wonderful possibilities of mankind, that tell you what the shows all about, not detailed breakdowns of every last event over some 40 years of television.

So I stick to high concept whenever possible.  There's not even so much as a place name in A Song in the Dark so far, and I pretty much intend to keep it that way.  

Because in my gaming, those are the kinds of games I gravitate to.  The games that give me concepts and themes and tools, to make my own stories and places, that will mean something to my fellow players and GMs at the table.  

Forgotten Realms doesn't mean anything to me.  It's just some guy trying to pin down his own campaign under glass.  I want no part in it.  

By and large, I've been lucky to deal by and large with groups who had very much the same attitude as I do, damn the canons and on with the adventure.  

So perhaps the best advice I can give you is, stick to the high concept games, and avoid the nitpicky players as much as humanly possible.  They're like leeches, ready to suck the joy and adventure out of a thing if only you let them.

Quote from: jdrakehWell, my point was that Lovecraftain horror, by virtue of its very nature, doesn't take place in anything remotely resembling "reality". . . because, you know, "reality" isn't crawling with tentacled, godlike, horrors from beyond the boundaries of known space and time



They can help ground you in an approximation of reality, which was my point. Such details would be the aforementioned "window dressing" that I alluded to. This is why the 3rd, hardcover, edition of CoC is my favorite -- it includes a huge collection of this window dressing.

We're in complete agreement except in the area of the amount of tentacled, godlike horrors that we have to put up with in "reality."

Cheers,
-E.

If the canon is huge, I let my players know what is and is not inclusive to my game - this has been a headache with Star Wars in the past for me. After I hand out a list of what is and isn't inclusive canon to the setting, if the players wish to discuss it outside of game then we'll talk about it (sometimes I even get convinced to allow some stuff in that they want). However, as GM my word is law and if the players do not think that they will be having fun in my version of the setting, then they don't have to play.

This sounds pretty heavy-habnded, but it saves a lot of trouble for me as the GM in the long run because I'm not continually arguing canon in-game (well, in-campaign actually).

Canon fanatics suck ass. And yes, of the games I enjoy they most commonly come up in the Forgotten Realms or Star Wars.  What's worse, they're "Obscure Canon" fanatics, that claim that if you don't do things exactly as they were detailed in Stupid Licensed Novel #3478 you are somehow not doing it right.

I deal with this usually by making it clear that MY version of these settings are my own version, not necessarily in line with any of the Canon (or at least, any of the Canon aside from the core book or actual Movies).

In any case, I've tended to notice that Canon Fanatics will end up being crappy players and lousy human beings for other additional reasons, and will rarely find a comfortable place in any of my campaigns.

RPGPundit

Quote from: -E.I do something "in the spirit of" -- I've done Star Trek a lot that way; I don't know Star Trek *nearly* well enough to get the details right, but I can do a big,  utopian federation with ridge-headed bad-guys and transporters and phasers, and so-on just fine.


Cheers,
-E.

Actually those ridge-headed guys were 'good guys" - they just hadn't hired a public relations firm yet.

 SORRY Folks - the knee jerked.


  I used to run up again these "canon-only" types all the time and bump heads with them. Probably the reason why my avatar looks the way it does on other forums - that was a LOT of head bumping.


- Ed C.