"that OTHER Traveller game"??

[daryen]

While I can't speak for anyone else, when I talk about canon, I only mean game setting. I (quite frankly) completely ignore game mechanics in this respect, as all versions conflict with each other. There really can't be any game mechanics "canon". For example, I feel that starships made with GT rules are probably closer to CT than those made with TNE (and presumably T4).

The explicit list of CT canon is given in all of the various CT Reprints. The explicit list of MT canon can be found here . I know of no such list for TNE, but it presumably could be summed up as "everything GDW published for TNE".

I don't have a link, but by "explicitly outside canon", I mean that as an admittedly alternate timeline, it by definition can't be canon. MWM's endorsement (or hypothetical lack thereof) is irrelevant to that.

Also, please always keep in mind the use of canon. Canon, quite frankly, is completely irrelevant to GMs and players. Once a GM or player touches the setting, it moves out from the OTU (and therefore canon) and into MYU/YTU.

Canon is only really needed by contributors who are to be "officially" published. And then it is only to try and keep those contributions at least mostly consistent with what has been published before.

 

[mike wightman]

Problem is the starship rules in TNE help to define that setting and it definitely breaks with prior canon

GT and T4 at least allow the continuation of the TNE paradigm without armwaving away the differences thanks to their design systems, IMHO.
It'll be interesting to see how TNE ships are officially reconciled with CT/HG/MT based T20

 

[snrdg082102]

Thank-you daryen for the link to the MT list.

Then by your definition T20 is going to be non-canon since the timeline has a better than even chance of conflicting with the Traveller material that has already been published.

I am getting the impression that if material for Traveller does not conform to closely cherished ideas of Traveller the individual believes, then the material is non-canon. If the G:T timeline had been published before MT would you consider MT non-canon? MT and TNE, at least for me, do not have the same feel as CT. MT and TNE both, at least to me, do not have any apparent goals other than a change from a stagnate 3I. G:T, with the help of JTAS, appears to be moving towards something other than another Long Night.

To the pure CT community MT, TNE, T4, G:T, and T20 are not canon. How can one licensed product line that is endored by MWM be canon and another not be canon? To barrow, admittedly a very liberal barrowing, from one of Robert A. Hienlien, sorry if I miss spelled his last name, books "I don't gork the difference."

My apologies since I appear to be too dense to understand the finer points of Traveller canon. Further, I apologize for my continued and stubborn view on this subject. As not to create, and my apologies if I have already, form of flame war I will endevour not to force my views on the rest of the community. Basically, I'll shut-up and watch how the thread develops.

Tom Rux

Originally posted by daryen:
While I can't speak for anyone else, when I talk about canon, I only mean game setting. I (quite frankly) completely ignore game mechanics in this respect, as all versions conflict with each other. There really can't be any game mechanics "canon". For example, I feel that starships made with GT rules are probably closer to CT than those made with TNE (and presumably T4).

The explicit list of CT canon is given in all of the various CT Reprints. The explicit list of MT canon can be found here . I know of no such list for TNE, but it presumably could be summed up as "everything GDW published for TNE".

I don't have a link, but by "explicitly outside canon", I mean that as an admittedly alternate timeline, it by definition can't be canon. MWM's endorsement (or hypothetical lack thereof) is irrelevant to that.

Also, please always keep in mind the use of canon. Canon, quite frankly, is completely irrelevant to GMs and players. Once a GM or player touches the setting, it moves out from the OTU (and therefore canon) and into MYU/YTU.

Canon is only really needed by contributors who are to be "officially" published. And then it is only to try and keep those contributions at least mostly consistent with what has been published before.

 

[kaladorn]

Ask yourself this question Tom.... what's the point of Canon?

To my mind, it exists as a common framework which people can discuss. So, two competing versions can't be the same canon. One could be "GURPS Trav Canon" and the other "MT Canon". But they can't both be 'Standard Traveller'. They conflict too pronouncedly. Minor differences can be handwaved away. Major differences.... that's a variant.

This distinction is moot except for people who are contributing to a product line. Those contributing to T5 presumably are not to refer to the post-1116 GT timeline. So in that instance, it matters.

Myself, my two current games are in 1115 now. I don't know how I'm going to handle 1116 - GT, MT classic Rebellion, LEW Wounded Colossus, or TB Homebrew

It helps to also keep my players guessing.

Otherwise, I could give a hoot about 'canon' except if someone asks about it and needs to have some comparison to some source which I can help out with providing. Otherwise, it matters not.

 

[Malenfant]

Tom,

I think too much importance is generally placed on what is canon and what isn't. For any given individual's Traveller game, canon is what the GM says it is, not what the books say it is.

The only thing canon is good for is to establish a common framework for the WRITERS of Traveller books to work in (well, that's ideally. In practise, canon is so full of inconsistencies mostly dating from the CT era that more often than not it's a major headache for authors). And, as Kaladorn says, as a common framework for discussion and cause for fisticuffs between Trav nuts

.

The most important thing to remember is that it doesn't remotely matter what someone on a discussion board says is canon or not - and for individual games, the only person that can define canon is the GM of that game, not Marc Miller or Loren Wiseman or anyone else.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Thank-you daryen for the link to the MT list.

You're welcome.

Then by your definition T20 is going to be non-canon since the timeline has a better than even chance of conflicting with the Traveller material that has already been published.

I don't know yet. I do know that what is being written is done to be as faithful to what came before, so as to prevent conflict as much as possible. We won't know until later whether it continues to be considered canon or not, but for now it can be assumed as such.

I am also not sure on T4. Much of T4 was contradictory to what had been written before, so I don't know, now after the fact, whether it is considered canon. (Obviously, when written it was intended to be, but I don't know whether that remains.)

I am getting the impression that if material for Traveller does not conform to closely cherished ideas of Traveller the individual believes, then the material is non-canon.

(Sorry for splitting your paragraph here, but it was easier to respond this way.)

While I guess some feel that way, I disagree. If it was written and has been declared canon, then it is canon whether I like it or not. Therefore, if I intended to write something for Traveller, then I had better accept it regardless of how I feel about it.

For example, MT and TNE are canon. Whether I like the Rebellion or not, whether I think the ihatei invasions are completely implausible or not, whether I think Virus was bad or not, whether I like seeing the 3I blown up or not, does not matter to the question of canon. It is what it is, and I have to choose how to deal with it.

As a player or GM, that is easy. Just pick what you like, and toss the rest out. But if I wish to be a contributor to that canon, then I must adhere to it.

If the G:T timeline had been published before MT would you consider MT non-canon? MT and TNE, at least for me, do not have the same feel as CT. MT and TNE both, at least to me, do not have any apparent goals other than a change from a stagnate 3I. G:T, with the help of JTAS, appears to be moving towards something other than another Long Night.

That is, for the most part, a non-answerable question. Had there been no MT, then there is no reason for the alternate timeline. While there may have still been a GT, there would have been no reason to make an alternative GTU.

And this message (and thread) are long enough already without going into the "Why" of MT and TNE. Suffice it to say that MT (in particular) was an attempt by GDW to directly give its customers what what they had been repeatedly asking for.

To the pure CT community MT, TNE, T4, G:T, and T20 are not canon. How can one licensed product line that is endored by MWM be canon and another not be canon? To barrow, admittedly a very liberal barrowing, from one of Robert A. Hienlien, sorry if I miss spelled his last name, books "I don't gork the difference."

Quite frankly, it is not the "pure CT community" that determines canon. MWM does. And he has said more than once (I don't have a reference handy, but I can try and find one) that MT and TNE are canon.

As for licenses, there are currently two: QLI and SJG. Right now, what QLI does is considered canon, both for 993 and for 1248. What SJG does is work on an alternate timeline, which is independent of canon concerns (outside that timeline, of course). SJG is about to start working on the Interstellar Wars period, and, to the best of my knowledge, that will be considered canon (God help the GT-haters! ).

Again, please always keep this one thing in mind: canon doesn't really matter to most of the people out there. It only really matters to those who are trying to write material for inclusion into canon. If you prefer the alternate GTU, then by all means use it and forget that MT and TNE were ever written. Just because they are canon doesn't mean you have to use them.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello kaladorn and daryen,

Again, thank-you both for the responses to my comments and for providing alternate points of view on Traveller canon. As indicated I promised to keep my responses to myself so as not to create a large amount of noise. Another thank-you for all the information you and the other members have provided me on this and many other topics of discussion.

Tom Rux

 

[kafka47]

Most people did not get what I meant by the GT line ending...

Here I was talking about the break between GT and the TNE. As LKW, aknowledges that TNE is the future history of GT as it is for MT, what trigger are we going to see leading to the release of the virus.

GT seems to be very static in the 3I sphere and much work has been done outline the Solomani but nothing that would have me convinced that the Solomani are nothing but a ragtag fleet escaping Imperial rule. True, I will wait and see, how the Interstellar Wars milieu will enrich my understanding of their society but so far GT does not offer answers. CT stipulated an almighty star empire to counter the Imperium. MT sorta resurected the threat of a Third Reich scenario embroilled and stalled around the Vegan Space. And, TNE (Mk I) wiped them off the map.

People also asked me, what was the end of CT? There are two threads to that discussion.

One thread is certainly, a milieu without end best represented by articles outlining the Hard Science of the milieu (such as that outlined in the AM or JTAS articles on Space Cities). Though, I think, that this represented an early form of Traveller and one that everyone could relate to, having the LBB.

The other is an emerging complexity outlined in the TAS news feeds, the Ancients trilogy and especially Adv. Signal GK which was moving the setting toward MT.

Both threads are legitimate and clearly GT is following the first after the rupture that was caused by MT. But, maybe, I am reading too much into the line, but surely, the milieu must begin to face some stresses as the Imperium decays.

I simply loved the work of the Wounded Colosssus outlined in an earlier post. However, we are not likely to see this manifestation in a GT universe. What I am looking for is bigger excitement... I guess I started seriously playing Traveller in the MT milieu, therefore, this has coloured my perception of the OTU...

 

[Elliot]

Kafka wrote

'As LKW, aknowledges that TNE is the future history of GT as it is for MT, what trigger are we going to see leading to the release of the virus.'

Isnt there a section in the GT sourcebook that says that Virus doesnt happen in GURPS Traveller - or has LKW changed his mind (Which would rather confirm my suspicion that the GT timeline has something to do with LW's expressed dislike of the MT timeline )

[edited to take out a potentially unkind remark]

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Elliot:
... (Which would rather confirm my suspicion that the GT stuff is therapy for LW's personal animus against the MT timeline and DGP in general - see his near rants on the TML)

Odd, I never minded MT just the Virus and the sense of Deux Ex Machina in the way it finished the Rebellion off.

Never really cared for the TNE era mileu that much. Others really like it and according to Marc Miller its canon so here is hoping that 1248 is a success and MJD works it all together well.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Kafka47:
Here I was talking about the break between GT and the TNE. As LKW, aknowledges that TNE is the future history of GT as it is for MT, what trigger are we going to see leading to the release of the virus.
[/qoute]

I've certainly never heard of this before though... I was always under the impression that while Longbow II and the Cymbeline chips do exist in GT, the former hasn't detected anything coming toward the Imperium from the core, and the latter are just scientific curiosities.

I asked Loren about this on JTAS, so hopefully he'll be able to clarify.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
And, as Kaladorn says, as a common framework for discussion and cause for fisticuffs between Trav nuts

.

WHO YOU CALLIN' A NUT, YA FLEA BITTEN SONOFA-VARGR?!

WHERE BE MY CUTLASS?!!!!!?

AVAST, HAVE AT THEE!

Seriously, I hope everyone reading who wonders about canonicity takes the point: It only matters for writers writing for publication, and they presumably should ask for guidance as to what is canon pertaining to their area of writing. It will depend on product line, etc.

But for the vast bulk of us, it is what our ref (our us if we are ref) says it is. And that's what matters. I hate to see divergent ideas shot down just for canonicity issues. Now, the smart person posting an idea for review identifies if he wants his work checked for canonicity.

If not, he acknowledges ahead of time it may be a canon conflict and that isn't a big concern, so need not be addressed in critiques.

I think a lot of folks on TML get their knickers in a twist over canon violations, when the author knows that but doesn't care or wants to explore the dynamics of a particular canon violation. They just don't always say so up front. And so blood is let, when it need not be.

Long Live Canon, Whatever That Means!