Is the term "canon" too loaded to use for rules discussion? I hate hearing phrases like "that's not in canon" or "where is that in canon" or "that goes against canon" on this forum.
Always debating rules as for or against canon says "gaming is my religion" to me, and not in a good way.

I would much prefer "where was that in the books?" or "that's kind of contrary to the tone in the books" and less loaded phrases like that.

Is it just me?

Yep. Its just you.

The two words don't seem to impart a different effect on myself.

It's just you, that's a proper application of the word.

Potato/potahto.

I have no problem with it. I would actually prefer it to "the books" if I had to choose.

Just you. It's quick and accurate.

~J

"Canon" brings only the baggage you put with it. If you suffer a nervous breakdown anytime your house rules are not accepted by other groups on different continents than you because "it's not canon," the problem is yours alone.

pc on dsf?

weaksauce.

The only reason I don't like it is because the sourcebook, Canon Companion, can be easily confused with the term.

Never heard of it. Perhaps you're referencing the Cannon Companion?

~J

It bothers me a little when people capitalize it, like it IS a religious text, or something.

Lowercase, it's totally appropriate.

So, yeah, I guess it's just you.

Heh, coincidentally the first definition of the word has everything to do with religious text.

"And yea, the god doth spake...let there be useless cyberlimbs"

Canon is Canon. You have a problem with that?

Relax, there's nothing to get worked up about, House Rulings are part of the Canon GM abilities . I am guilty of the oh-too-frequent use of that word, but to me, it simply means something is in the published books.

I'm reminded of an SNL skit... heh.

There is a slight difference I see. There may be some books that are not canon. I don’t know about SR but in D&D 3.0 & 3.5 “in the books” is much les specific than “canon”

Its other advantage is that it is les typing than “as stated in the rule books”. This may indicate that we are lazy but if we where not then why would CC be more common on the boards than canon companion.

Some people tae it to seriously but you will find extremists in every grouping of people and it can be hard to impart feelings into text accurately (hence the CAPS) sometimes people want to express a sentiment between normal and shouting strength and people read it wrong. this is the WWW, confusion hapons.

Edward

No, technically, that's not the correct way to use the word. The definition of the word, as it matters to this thread's use of the word, is as follows:

Just to clarify Crimson Jack's definition, I think these entries from Webster's clarify the usage here a little better.

Actually I'm reminded of an Ex Vice President.

canon, written upon and published in the books and followed by others

cannon, prep the fuse, pack it full of gunpowder, add a cannon ball or anything else metallic you wouldn't mind being rid of, point at target, light fuse... no more target.

same difference to me.

Well i dont mind peeps useing it but......... it would be nice for the more experienced players to say where in canon the information they are talking about is! would make looking it up alot easyer!

torz x

It's merely a very convenient word for expressing the concept "the common base upon which each of us have built our widely divergent philosophies upon". Nothing more.

You know, a cannon made to the exact specifications of how a cannon should be made would be a canon cannon, which absolutely rocks.

I like the word. It gets the point across quickly and susinctly.

JaronK

In the earliest edition of Shadowrun, questioning authority was a common and accepted practice. Shadowrun players (and roleplayers in general) tend to carry on this fine tradition.

The tendancy toward the term "canon" is mostly, in my experience, a result of having to deal with a number of different Shadowrun games, and needing a common frame of reference. Whether you just haven't gotten to a major plot device, or you never read a given book and continued playing without it, or whether you changed major elements of the setting to suit your whims or specific idea of the game you want to play; you've wandered away from the common reference material that everyone (theoretically) has access to. This also applies to rules, where House Rules and (for reasons I cannot imagine) conversions to other systems may make conversations a tad chaotic if there is no common ground.

Naturally, even with canon, interpretations differ. Which is as it should be.

JaronK: Actually, I think that would be the canon cannon according to the cannon canon. But I digress.

in the beginning, god rolled a 20. and there was light!

If your goal is communication, you are usually better off using words as they are commonly used, rather than as they may be used for someone who is familiar with the 3rd or 4th definitions in the dictionary.
If your goal is to show off how smart you are, then by all means use the more obscure definitions and argue about the technical meaning of individual words - none of that will help you communicate anything meaningful, however, other than that you're a bit full of yourself.
That is why I said using Hero for Hitler and Tyrant for FDR probably aren't the best choices, unless you are a neo-Nazi and intend their common meanings.

The common meaning of "canon" to my mind is "scripture", and calling a role playing game scripture is in my view either disparaging of scripture or giving too much weight to what is, after all, only a game.

Now technically the use of "canon" as it appears in these forums is (for the most part) a correct modern usage - I do not dispute that - I merely wondered if anyone else was bothered about the more common meaning of canon.
Apparently no one else is, so carry on guys.

okay, enough of these semantics. let's get back to the original topic, which is... oh, right. carry on.