Quote from: jdrakehThat was a typo, right?

 I fixed the typo.

 Thank you!!

 What I should've said was RUIN those who want to argue "canon" with me....

In my group I don't get much canon policing, partially because only one of the players tends to follow histories in the settings we play, and partially because we play Exalted. In Exalted, what history tells you and what actually happened is a lie. The books is up front about this, and it's expected that PCs will eventually find this out in the course of the campaign. With that in mind, if I change something, they seem to not mind. I figure they assume that either the history they knew was a lie, or the history they're being told is a lie.

The Exalted boards are an entirely different matter though. I've started threads that were blatantly about a house rule, and hence could not be considered canon at all, only to have people argue with me for 7 pages on two different boards that "it doesn't work like that." This despite me constantly saying that I know how canon operates and don't care. For those folks I state in multiple threads that I'm not interested in being bound by canon. When they try to insist that I be bound by canon I either explain again that I don't want to be or ignore them.

Except for the times that I argue because I feel an urge to vent.

One more thing that really bothers me about canon - does not apply to my crew...any of the groups I have gamed with actually - is when players use canon as IC knowledge and fuck up plotlines. A GM friend told me of this problem. I would hate this to happen in my games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI like how the Kenzer guys handled the world of Aldrazar (or Garweeze Wurld) for HackMaster. Basically, every GM's campaign is simply an alternate world/parallel universe/"Shadow" (in the Amber sense) of the original HM campaign world. Canon is thus pretty much whatever the GM says it is. It's written right into the rules, so it pretty much heads off any potential canon arguments.

That's a nifty approach. It's essentially "This is my personal verison of X!" but with in-game justification. Very nifty, indeed

Quote from: jrientsThe Traveller nuts have a very handy abbreviation known as IMTU.  That stands for In My Traveller Universe.  It is used thusly:  "We can all agree that the canon says X, Y, and Z, but IMTU it so happens that A, B, and C are true."

Yup.

Just don't say "Jump Drones" in mixed company.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadYup.

Just don't say "Jump Drones" in mixed company.

You mean "Jump Torpedoes", right?

Quote from: jeff37923You mean "Jump Torpedoes", right?

 I've used them TWICE in my campaign - and not the way you might think.

- Ed C.

Quote from: RockViperI left the Greytalk list because of the Canon fanatics. Its almost impossible to actually discuss your own version of a game (any game/gameworld) world because some gormless wonder will always jack the thread with whines of "Its not Canon".

I really dislike that kind of attitude. I only barely understand why people spend years of their life arguing the the toss over the canonical status of non-interactive media, but when it comes to RPG settings it becomes sheer idiocy. I suppose some people are desperate for a sense of homogenized order in their life, even extending to imaginary worlds built purely for entertainment. Any threat to the perceived status quo is seen as a personal attack.

Usually it comes up in the middle of a game session. My immediate response is to say, "This is how I'll GM it. I am however quite happy for you to GM. Would you like to GM? Would anyone else like this guy to GM instead?" I offer the books as I say it.

And of course no-one wants to change GMs in the middle of a game session, so they tell the Canonical Doctrine guy to shut the fuck up.

These blokes (they're always male) are usually not ones who really want to be frontseat drivers, they want to be backseat drivers with right of veto over the front bloke. So you just slide on over and let them get into the front seat if they want, then they back right off.

I master the game, the game does not master me!

Quote from: Kyle AaronThese blokes (they're always male) are usually not ones who really want to be frontseat drivers, they want to be backseat drivers with right of veto over the front bloke.

To paraphrase Eddie Murphy (on Stevie Wonder)...
 
"You wanna impress me? Take the wheel for a little while, motherfucker !"

Quote from: jdrakehI 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!"

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? So. . . how have you dealt with this issue in your own game and/or game groups?

"Fuck you."

It works for me and my group.

I've come to the concusion that I am a canon fanatic. But only when I'm GMing, and the canons I've picked (Glorantha, Arthur, 5th century AD) have the advantage of being loose.

One of my favorite movie lines:

"What the hell you got canon fuses for?"

"My canon."

We now return you to your thread.  We apologize for the interruption.

I strap them over the mouths of their canon and pull the lanyard.

-clash

Canon is for designers only. When we play, we set our own cannon, which may be based on the designers vision or made up by us. I don't care that the river runs through the centre of town in the designers canon. In my canon, the river flows where i damn well want it to (yes, i've actually had that argument).