How canon does it have to be? |
How canon does it have to be? |
Feb 13 2008, 06:53 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 |
Apparently, I've offended some by quoting from a AD&D 2nd Edition rulebook a statement that if a rule doesn't work you & your group to go ahead and change it. Especially since one or more of the people offended are apparently writers / contributors for SR content. A comment was even made that including such a statement was basically saying "Hey, we put out a crappy game." Never mind the details of making such a statement are exceedingly short-sighted, rude, condescending, and decidedly unprofessional. Such a comment also tells me no one bothered to go read the full (unparaphrased) statement from said rulebook and the supporting reasons why it was included.
My opinion on why it was included in said rulebook... it seems to me the designers from TSR back in the day were humble & talented enough to recognize that they didn't have a monopoly on "A Good Idea" when it came to rules for their game. Now that's not saying other game designers aren't humble just that the folks at TSR knew they didn't have "the end-all, be-all" in role-playing games that would take care of everyone know matter their interests or preferences. (Yes, I'm quite aware the intense hatred and loathing that some have toward mentioning anything related to D&D. They can get over it. I tolerate their preferences for games. They can tolerate mine.) This understanding is reflected in the phenomenon called "House Rules". Every game has them to some extent. Some more, some less. Hell, different groups playing the same game have different house rules. All the TSR folks were saying was that if a given rule in the book didn't work for your group, to change it so you could follow the rule of "Have FUN". They were all but saying "There's no wrong way to play if everyone at the table is having fun." So the question of the poll is simple. How much Canon must there be in the game for it to be fun for you? Does the game have to follow the rules so strictly that stepping even slightly out of line gets you banished from the table? Or have you not met a houserule that you didn't like? Does playing fast and loose work for you? Or is it somewhere in-between? Feel free to state your poll choice if you are so inclined. |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 07:08 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 28-March 05 From: NA/UCAS/IN/ Member No.: 7,246 |
Back when I played, I was usually the rules lawyer or GM. But, on occasion the rules given maybe just don't fit. Example: AD+D 2nd edition martial arts rules. One of my players' monk wanted to drop kick a guard, but the roll turned it into a kidney punch. So we just treated it like a regular attack and allowed him to get his kicks. I like the rules, I usually know the rules pretty well, but sometimes you just have to toss a rule that just doesn't seem to fit your specific game. If I'm the GM and you can present a reasonable case, I usually allow the players to get by with what they want to do, as long as it makes game sense.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 07:11 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 |
My vote is 80%. I generally will make / ask for a few adjustments to smooth out what I / the rest of the group perceives as rough spots or areas that cause problems (game play slowdown, confusion, etc) depending on whether I'm running or playing the game.
Otherwise, I generally stay as close to the rules as possible. I gave up being a stick-in-the-mud regarding rules a long time ago. It wasn't all that fun for me and the folks I played with didn't much care for it either. On the flip side it did encourage us to lay out the ground rules before a new campaign started so everyone was on the same page. As for canon changing things, depending on how major it was would determine how / when it would get worked in or otherwise be ignored. A prime example of this is the Trial of Refusal between Clan Wolf & Clan Jade Falcon (BattleTech). Our group was in charge of a galaxy within Clan Wolf. Not one of the ones listed for Clan Wolf in published products but one in addition to those. We had the foresight to make sure our changes to canon would be compatible with anything published. In other words, we worked within canon, rather than against it. Thus when Khan Ward left with the Warden faction of Clan Wolf, what was left of our Galaxy (after the Trial) packed up shop and left with them. So having the Trial happen didn't change much for our group. Did we houserule BattleTech? You betcha. We had houserules regarding Heat as well as critical spaces. The rules as published (at the time) didn't make a whole lot of sense such as Heat couldn't ever go above 30. |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 07:11 PM
Post
#4
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
the world should be about 80% Canon . . including both rules and background . .
the other 20% are used to make the 80% canon be fun to play with/in |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 07:19 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,168 Joined: 15-April 05 From: Helsinki, Finland Member No.: 7,337 |
I went 60%. When it comes to rules, Im a huge fan of ''if it causes fun to be trampled on, it goes out the door''. As for canon? We've had fun making up our own corporations to mix IN with the current SR world; honestly it doesn't matter in the end. I put 60%, because around that(maybe even half), still feels like Shadowrun to me. It starts sort of dissapearing after that.
As for rules, though, whatever makes the game more fun. I don't think i've played a shadowrun game YET that used the BBB 100%, and i've been playing it now about 13 years. |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 07:32 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
what "it" are we being asked about, here?
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 07:33 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Canon says that if you don't like rules of if they don't apply to a situation, the GM can change them. So I guess that playing 100% canon means changing rules you don't like.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 08:07 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 777 Joined: 22-November 06 Member No.: 9,934 |
Apparently, I've offended some by quoting from a AD&D 2nd Edition rulebook a statement that if a rule doesn't work you & your group to go ahead and change it. Especially since one or more of the people offended are apparently writers / contributors for SR content. A comment was even made that including such a statement was basically saying "Hey, we put out a crappy game." if someone becomes offended that their product does not have rules for every situation, and that all of the games being played HAVE to incorporate non canon rules and ad hoc situations to cope with the "left out" material. then they should have done a better job of filling in those holes. now shouldn't they. that's like getting upset the guy you bought the car from neglected to inform you that after your car runs out of gas you have to put more in it. |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 08:17 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
I go for 10% or less. I don't care that much about the canon metaplots and stories in my games. I just enjoy the fact that I can afford to buy the books to support the company producing this game and because they're usually very interesting to ready. The likely hood of me using stuff from them is usually slim to none, the exception (so far) being Emergence around which I based my current games.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 08:18 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
As a player, which I usually am, I don't mind deviations from canon (either background, or rules) so long as the GM lays them out up front. Nothing bothers me more than getting into a situation where I think I have a good picture of my odds based on the rules I assume we're playing with, only to have the GM throw them out or change them at the last moment. Same goes for background fluff. I should be able to assume what I know about the SR universe to hold true unless I am told otherwise. If that isn't the case, I feel like I have to bounce everything off of my GM. ("So, there ARE trolls in this world, right? And they're still big and ugly and not small and cute, right?")
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 08:21 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
I answered 80% canon. I want my players to be able to expect things from the world, like BlackHat says. My house-rules and deviations from canon fit in a two-page document, which all my players get.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 08:25 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
It does not have to be "canon". It must be, to the greatest extent possible, well-codified and available to the players to at least the degree that it would be available to their characters. To the greatest extent possible, this must happen before the players could make plans based on whatever is being changed—the time to tell your players that Strato-9s come unarmed or that you never, ever resolve social situations with dierolls is before they buy Strato-9s or social skills.
In other words, "this is how we're doing it for right now" is unacceptable. "This is how we're doing it from now on, and that will be as consistently applied as if it had come from the book" is acceptable. "This is how we're doing it for right now because we can't take a two-hour break to analyze the new rules in the middle of the session, but we'll have it firmly codified as soon as possible, preferably before next session" is the unfortunate compromise that life forces on us. Additionally, the ability to houserule is never, ever a fix for broken rules. Knowledge of the difference between a fix and a workaround is critical. As such, it is my opinion that a statement such as the one you indicate (a broadly similar statement appears in both SR3 and SR4) is totally inappropriate for inclusion in a rulebook. ~J |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 10:34 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...I chose 70%,
Mostly this comes from adding to rather than subtracting from the setting. Personally speaking, I prefer to have a consistent base setting to work off of. Now there are some elements I downplay most notably the IE/GD metaplot as well as ED tie ins (never played the game). Oh they're still there in the background, it's just that I choose not to bring them directly into my campaigns. I enjoy infusing more personal colour into a campaign, again not so much to take away or replace exsiting elements as it is to broaden the world setting a bit more. I have my own corporations, though none are megas. There is one Consortium which is about as close as I get to a mega. While I don't deal with GDs and IEs I still have some powerful NPC figures (like Lady Meggan Grande). Of course the greatest expansions I have made in the past involved technology, most notably vehicles and space systems (such as HighStar Station™, Marathon Precision SStHEO Spaceplane, and [my "baby" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ] the Brimstone™ Focused Solar Canon). Unfortunately the lack of frameworks and parameters for hardware/vehicle design in 4th ed has, for the time being, put a damper on things. The one time I did take what I felt was a fair amount of liberty with the setting was with my Rhapsody in Shadow campaign. In seeing that there was pretty much no background material on the Balkans between the end of the last Euro War in '37 and peace talks taking place in Summer of '63 I was left with pretty much a blank slate that spanned just over two decades. |
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 10:36 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
It's not a game you can go about playing in any meaningful way if the rules are constantly in flux.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2008, 11:17 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
I voted 80%. Like Blackhat, I don't mind house rules if they are explained before the game. Because the whole point of having rules for building characters is to be able to quantify their abilities. I admit, though, that one of my pet peeves is GMs who make up house rules before they try it with the canon rules, or sometimes before they even read the canon rules.
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 12:45 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,991 Joined: 1-February 08 From: Off the rock! Back In America! WOOOOO! Member No.: 15,601 |
I voted 70% but in actuality I'll throw the whole damn canon out if it's making the goal of gaming, amusement, from occuring in any given situation. I'm fairly willing to ditch canon story but I'm reluctant to drop whole rules unless my players and I agree that they suck. Typically we just hand wave through situations that don't make sense.
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 01:29 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Given the orginal 'fight' let me weigh in with an observation first:
There are at least two types of Canon. Rule Canon and Fluff Canon. I seem to recall the fight was over fluff canon... Anyway: Rules wise, I don't like changes. That doesn't mean I do 100% canon, but I'd rather cut out a rule that write a new one. As a GM I probably ignore more rules than I use... but I'm a lazy bastard. I'm not sure how to rate subtractive canon so I'll say 50%... Fluff/Background wise: I'm happy with Nada if I'm told in advance. I mean, if I can play a Troll (rules for trolls exist), but you call it a 'Giant Fargleplaster' or whatever, I don't care.. much. Still, at least a little fluff canon should be used for common ground or else I might as well use another game all together. So lets say 20%. I guess that gives me a poll average of 30% (and my initial Fluff percent was a lower value, so I round down...) |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 01:33 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 170 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,412 |
I try and stick with the story/fluff as much as possible, but how much it impacts the game is pretty much up to what the players do, what jobs they take or do on their own, etc...
As for rules... well... I have to say I am not a huge fan of the Shadowrun rules. From 1st to 4th editions. I've played them all and had fun campaigns doing so, but sooner or later they all began to annoy me. After my last 4th edition campaign ended last summer, I began working on converting the Shadowrun rules over into the Hero System. Now with my new campaign I find it works a lot better, the players are more into it, I am more into it, the rules are grittier and more detailed and more flexable then Shadowrun 4th edition. There are a lot more cool options for characters and it allows for more variance in character design, growth and specializations. So for me I am 90+% canon when it comes to setting/story and currently 0% when it comes to rules. |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 02:47 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 565 Joined: 7-January 04 Member No.: 5,965 |
philosophically, i think if you have less than 75% of the original material, you are basically playing a different game. not that this is a bad thing, just that it is no longer the original. if you take the shadowrun rules and play star trek with it... its not shadowrun anymore.
i dont think 'plot' matters to a game for cannon, meta or otherwise, but i think setting and rules do. setting and rules are what make shadowrun what it is. |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 03:17 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
It depends on what you consider canon and what is RAW.
Although RAW states that you can change the rules that do not work for you, that rule in itself is only a very small percentage of what is RAW. To me, canon means not only RAW but also only the material statted out in the published material, a much stricter defination. I try to stick to canon as much as I can, hence my vote of 100%. Should not be a surprise to anyone here. But practically speaking, it is inevitable that there is some deviation because most games themselves are not canon. |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 03:22 AM
Post
#21
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 189 Joined: 17-December 03 From: Louisville, KY Member No.: 5,912 |
80 percent. you need a little room to breathe.
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 04:38 AM
Post
#22
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
"10% Canon or less"
We're still using six-sided dice? Good, let's play! |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 09:52 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 254 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,768 |
10% or less for me as well.
Shadowrun using Wushu rules and Unknown Armies magic paradigms? I'm there! Using Exalted rules to play Solars in the Shadowrun setting? Sign me up! |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 01:36 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 858 Joined: 25-August 03 From: Braunschweig, North German League, Allied German States Member No.: 5,537 |
I voted 80% and that's meant rule-wise. I like to have some house-rules (which, whatever game used, tend to focus on modifications to character generation).
Fluff-wise I like to keep it as close to 100% as possible. That does not mean that I don't invent own stuff (NPCs, corporations, etc.) but I stick to the metaplot and don't introduce anything that clashes with canon. |
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 01:55 PM
Post
#25
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,328 Joined: 28-November 05 From: Zuerich Member No.: 8,014 |
I voted 70% but in actuality I'll throw the whole damn canon out if it's making the goal of gaming, amusement, from occuring in any given situation. I'm fairly willing to ditch canon story but I'm reluctant to drop whole rules unless my players and I agree that they suck. Typically we just hand wave through situations that don't make sense. I share this stance. If something from the rulebooks is not helpful in my game, I don't use it. RUles-wise, I usually make house rules to cover some aspects, but over all play like the rules are written. FLuff-wise, anything goes. Since as a GM, the game has to be fun for me as well, I don't use stuff I dislike, or feel is stupid. I am a grognard, so to speak, from SR1, and for me the feeling I want is a world dominated by megacorps, with people using magic and cyberware to survive. Fluff that runs counter to this I usually don't use. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th January 2025 - 06:56 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.