Printable View
OKay, what (if any) is canon in your game?
For my new one most everything except Voyager and Enterprise is canon. My reasoning is simply that I don't like the series and there is nothing either has done that I can't just steal, modify and then insert into my game.
How about you?
And why?
Actually, I consider everything canon except ENT, since the show must either support what comes after it (in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOy) or be ignored. (Hey look, I didn't even have to say how much I dislike the show, oops I'm still typing... ;) )Quote:
Originally posted by AslanC
OKay, what (if any) is canon in your game?
That said, the campaign I currently play in started following canon as established by the end of DS9, yet has come to divert a great deal from it afterwards. Then again, this 'diversion' has come in no small amount due to the ability of our characters to change the time-line several times... For instance, we changed the timeline so that there was no Founders' Disease at the end of the Dominion War. How? Well, we ended up killing Sloan before he could put the plan into action... Though through no fault of our own, of course! Blame our narrator! :D
On the other hand, canon can be a help. When the narrator was sick of running the same campaign and wanted to be a player, I took over as narrator for one episode. I ran a game right after First Contact about a Maquis mutiny on a Starfleet vessel. Then, just as the mutiny had succeeded and the ship was entering the Badlands, the Cardassians joined the Dominion and the area was swarming with Jem'Hadar!
The plot would not have been possible if not for what was established in First Contact and DS9, so you shouldn't always consider canon to be a hinderances. More often than not I find there are plenty of stories between the lines just waiting to be told. All you have to do is keep your eyes open for them.
If I can come up with a reason for my Vulcan Science officer to have rounded ears, & blue blood with yellow polkadots, I go for it.
Seriously, I consider canon guidelines, not a straightjacket.
(and I know this is the same line I used in chat about 2 weeks ago, so I don't expect to sway anyone.)
I tend to use whatever is in the shows, including that which I don't like... if I know about it. :D (I tend not to watch the shows I don't like)
I tend not to use the Trek novels, though I'm not above borrowing the occasional idea from them.
I also think of the Call of Cthulhu tales as canon in my games. :D
I have a tendency to borrow from the novels if I can manage a good character or story out of it too.Quote:
I tend not to use the Trek novels, though I'm not above borrowing the occasional idea from them.
"OKay, what (if any) is canon in your game?"
Sorry, but this is a copmpletely nonsensical question, and demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what a literary "canon" is. You're mistaking it for an official continuity, which is a somewhat different concept.
Canon in a game campaign would properly be the events which took place in play or were established in a game context. The recognised continuity in your game may or may not include all of the Star Trek canon, but let's try and get the terms right, eh?
Everybody chooses which sources to use in his or her own game, but why is it that everyone who decides they don't like a particular show always gets so self-righteous about it?
The hair you are splitting doesn't change the fact that everyone understood the question. Does it?
So why split the hair?
Like others have said, cannon is a guideline for me not the rule of law.
I've so far included parts of
Enterprise
TOS
The Movies ('cept five)
TNG
DS9
Voyager
as well *some* parts of the New Frontier Novels into my game. (Basically anything tooo 'out there' is left out. It's generally that there is a ship called Excaliber out there in Thallonian space, under Calhoun, the crew has the same names, everything else is negotiable.)
In short I keep what I like or works and I dump the rest.
Who has gotten self righteous about it here? Looks to me like everyone is having apolite and nice ocnversation where no one has taken a shot at anyone.Quote:
Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
[iEverybody chooses which sources to use in his or her own game, but why is it that everyone who decides they don't like a particular show always gets so self-righteous about it?
I get a sense of deja vu at this point...haven't we discussed this before. :).
I'm partial towards keeping TOS, TNG, DS9 and the movies (except STV). The jury is still out on VOY though...I tend to keep it as canon mainly because some of the characters keep cropping up in my game from time to time.
Novels are a bit touch and go. Most of the Peter David material tends to make it into my games. As does Diane Duane. I like the novels set after DS9 finale and the events there sort of take place unless I've already screwed with it in my own continuity.
Personally I don't adhere to the canon as if it was cast in stone, I keep what I like and discard the stuff and nonsense (eg. the warp 5 speed limit never even got a whiff in).
I mainly use TNG and DS9, the only two shows my players are familiar with. Voyager had some OK moments, but I don't use it because my crew doesn't go anywhere near that part of the galaxy.
I use as much as I can from canon. I try to remain as much within the guidelines of official Trek-dom as I can. Part of the fun for me is trying to stay as closely as possible "within the lines" while still creating story ideas which give the players a good experience at the gaming table.
That being said, I do not discard the wealth of material out there that has been written, drawn etc. for Trek but not appeared on-screen. Examples of this would include the suppositions found in the Encyclopedia, the situations not seen onscreen from the Starfleet Survival Guide, the listings in the Starship Spotter, various technical manuals etc. I try to integrate as much as possible from these sources as well.
I disagree that it's hair-splitting, not do I believe that everyone necessarily understands the question as you meant it. It never, ever hurts to use words correctly.
I use the entirety of the Star Trek canon as the background for my game. It's the "official record" - what you find in the history books, complete with all the contradictions inherent in any extensive literary or cinematic canon (as an example from the most hotly debated literary canon argument of them all, where was John H. Watson hit by the Jezail bullet - and "Afghanistan" isn't the right answer!). It's not necessarily what really happened, any more than "Et tu, Brute?" was Julius Caesar's dying question., but it's the common ground - all my players have seen every episode and it forms the basis for what "everyone knows." It also allows me to do some heavy rationalisation - for instance, the reason the Enterprise-A was able to reach the centre of the Galaxy was that the rogue Cytherian (a.k.a. "God") used the same influence and advanced knowledge to influence the engineering crew to modify the engines as did the Cytherians in the Nth Degree with Reg Barclay (being under Sybok's influence, they were more psychologically malleable, so the holodeck was unecessary).
This approach also allows me considerable flex in using non-canon material.
- Galaxyquest replaces Trek in my campaign history as a media phenomenon in the late 20th century.
- An early Federation cruiser, the NX class USS Excalibur NX-57, was present when the surface of Altair V was laid waste by the misuse of Preserver artifacts by Dr. Edward Morbius in 2180.
- The animated Star Trek is a series of TNG-era children's holonovels based extremely loosely on Kirk's 5-year mission with only bits of it haveing any basis in fact (Yesteryear).
- The Starfleet Marine Corps was disbanded in 2296 after investigations into the Khitomer incident three years earlier.
- Miles O'Brien was always an enlisted man, the Lieutenant's pips and reference in one episode are "errors" in the historical record (the "reality" being that in an alternate universe, he really was an officer, but Worf never actually made it back to his own universe in Parallels, but the phase variance caused by this largely insignificant difference was below the threshold of a Galaxy class starship's sensors). This is all background to the campaign continuity, but can be arbitrarily changed if it hasn't been established in game context.
Game "canon" (i.e. the actual events as established in game play) varies from the official record in several ways.
- History records that USS Excalibur was destroyed and all hands killed in the M-5 wargames: in point of fact, there were two survivors, and the ship was mothballed until its use several years later as a testbed for some of the systems in the refit Constitution class and complete refit in the early 2270's. One of the surviving crewmen became captain of the refit ship. The ship's number was NCC-1705. The official number, NCC-1664 (never established on screen anyway) was actually an older, Baton Rouge class.
- The historical record implies that the events of Star Trek III and IV are only about 3 months apart. In game continuity, it was more like 18 months.
- Captain James T. Kirk had a brief affair with Captain Tobi Perrini in 2290.
I'm just glad I'm not running a Babylon 5 campaign - it would be real difficult to rationalise their history and stay within the show's continuity. ;)
I use everything canon, even if I dislike it. Which does not mean the players cannot alter the timeline by their own actions; if they do, it will create an alternate reality.
Owen!!! Damn your eyes! :)Quote:
Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
I disagree that it's hair-splitting, not do I believe that everyone necessarily understands the question as you meant it. It never, ever hurts to use words correctly.
I wasn't confused until you quibbled the point!
Can you elaborate on what you were saying to AslanC with an example of "continuity vs canon"?
To my mind, canon is the accepted 'happenings', much as the books of the Bible are considered canonical by Christians, a set of histories (TOS, TNG, etc) are considered canonical in Trek.
It is the 'starting position' - before the game campaign commences. What occurs after it starts (or stems directly from canon, such as a visit to Ocampa after the destruction of the Caretaker) is subsumed into continuity.
Now...I may have it completely arse-about. But going by the definition of "canon" as a 'set of rules, or books, commonly accepted as correct', I don't think I have.
AslanC was asking, if I read him correctly, 'what books do you include in you Trek canon?' In other words, do you include Enterprise, or pretend it didn't happen.
Now, continuity is the 'keeping it all making sense', to me. So, if you include Enterprise, you have to maintain continuity by rationalising how the Ferengi remained a secret until the 24th Century, since it was established in your canon that they did - unless of course, you simply remove that episode from your canonical documents.
My campaign, for example, includes in its canonical sources: TOS, TNG and DS9. Voyager has gone AWOL just recently, so I don't have to decide whether or not to include it - if I do, you can bet it won't be ending the way VOY did! (In fact, I'm trying to hunt down the terrific 'alternate' script someone wrote and posted for Endgame - I'd use that!)
So, so far I have the TOS/TNG/DS9 'books' as my canon. However...I remove some 'verses' from the books (ie: episodes). Such as:
The Mirror Universe - doesn't exist in my campaign.
The various TOS episodes with 'Space Nazis', 'Space Romans' and 'Space Surfie Chicks' (what, you mean there wasn't one with Space Surfie Chicks!!!! :) )
The woeful TNG episodes like The Royale and Justice.
So my game 'canon' comprises modifed versions of TOS/TNG/DS9.
My game's continuity ensures that if my characters visit Eroticon VI on shore leave, that if they run into Eccentrica Gallumbits two seasons on, she'll recognise them.
For example: It's been established in my game's history that Dr Sito Rana (played by my wife) is an old friend of Major Kira Nerys; they knew each other as teenagers on Bajor during the Occupation.
The reason? Sito Rana was a member of the Kohn Ma. When she realised the horrific things they were doing (killing more Bajoran 'collaborators' than Cardassians - by wiping out villages where collaborator's lived), she fled. They have a 'once-in, never-out' policy, however, and were after her.
She was protected by the Shakaar resistance group until she could get offworld, and that's where she met Kira and the two forged a friendship as teenage girls.
Now...in a game-year's time, another survivor of the Kohn Ma may come after Sito. Or she may need a favour from Kira. This goes with the continuity bit...as does the fact Sito hates Captain Picard (the last message she got from her sister told of her chewing out by Picard - then he sent her off to die). So I can play on that continuity to create a conflict should Sito and Picard ever meet (which they undoubtedly will! :) )
This is continuity - events in an earlier episode have ramifications in later ones.
What comes before your episodes constitutes your canon, in my book. It's the starting position.
Sooooo...how has AslanC got it wrong? (Or me, for that matter).
I'm the first to admit I'm no literary expert, and this is based on my interpretations of the definitions of the words 'canon' and 'continuity'...
Canon: The collection of books received as genuine Holy Scriptures, called the sacred canon, or general rule of moral and religious duty, given by inspiration; the Bible; also, any one of the canonical Scriptures.
Continuity: the state of being continuous; uninterupted connection or succession; close union of parts; cohesion; as, the continuity of fibers
(Both from: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary , 1998)
Just as another example: canon has it that Sito Jaxa died in 2370. But...by a twist of continuity (the fact her body was never found) I can 'bring her back' in another episode without violating either canon or continuity.
Now...if I tried to bring back Sisko's wife (can't remember her name, OTTOMH), that would be violating both, as she was seen dead before Sisko abandoned the Saratoga.
Damn, those are good.Quote:
Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
- Galaxyquest replaces Trek in my campaign history as a media phenomenon in the late 20th century.
- An early Federation cruiser, the NX class USS Excalibur NX-57, was present when the surface of Altair V was laid waste by the misuse of Preserver artifacts by Dr. Edward Morbius in 2180.
- The animated Star Trek is a series of TNG-era children's holonovels based extremely loosely on Kirk's 5-year mission with only bits of it haveing any basis in fact (Yesteryear).
As to the point in question, I use the accepted canon as the basis for my game. IE, what we see on screen in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. I also use information from certain published works, such as the tech manuals (but with an eye to the fact that these are not set in stone). Some information from the Animated series also makes it in (though I tend to defer to the novelisations, rather than the aired episodes, and also rationalise/ignore some of the really dubious stuff). Actually, I think I may steal Owen's Animated Series idea :D
I almost never take anything from the novels. Though I may use some of the upcoming Lost Era stuff.
All of TNG
parts of DS9 (mostly the early seasons, weeding out more from the later seasons)
none of VOY ('cause I think it's all crap)
As for TOS, novels and the like... I don't enough about them to judge, so I exclude them for now.
Since I'm running an alternate ENT campaign, only selected details are considered canon (such as dress-codes and techno-babble ;), etc.)
Joe
We use Enterprise, some of TOS -- but ignore the really crappy episodes. The movies, minus V. Most of TNG, except the parts that either made no sense or were just bad. The TNG movies are pretty much part of the game canon. DS9 is used, though I haven't seen it, so just the main issues are covered. Voyager disappeared and isn't heard from again.
No books, no comics, though a few of the animated show eps were okay and are used. The new star charts book is now game canon for the game here.
Certain things were changed to protect the players and provide a more realistic universe. Starfleet is more military than we've seen in the small screen, more like the movies -- complete with the half-assed bureaucracy and idiocy one expects. Politics are more realistic, with more personal self-interest. The UFP system works, but more because of the bureaucracies' desire to keep it going; there are serious issues of stovepiping infromation, production, etc. as per the last Soviet Union. There are problems, also, with the Fed getting its legs for any kind of conflict, internal or external -- they are so busy understanding their enemy that they are often paralysed; only once they've taken a hit or two do they get going.
Religion is still out there & people still believe in this stuff; people need something more, often, than reality.
Technology's more consistent; no redesigning/rewiring stuff beyond what it could reasonably do (transporter can be used as replicators, deflector can do other 'force field' like stuff; communicators aren't turned into phasers...)
My explanation for it is our game universe is a quantum state or two off from the show. Most of the stuff in the shows happened, but not all; we're a divergent timeline.
I also use everything (live action) that made it to screen (I also ignore Star Trk V for the most part...although it does give us some nice insights to the crew's relationships), with some extra elements that I just happen to like (Caitians ;), a couple of elements from the early 80's novels).
I'll even use Voyager info (which, since I won't ever run anything in the Delta Quadrant, I won't have to worry about most of it :p ).
I take my cue directly from Mr. Berman who, in co-writing the TNG era productions, said that he (and Roddenberry) had decided to "essentially reinvent" trek and to "largely ignore" large parts of TOS and the movies (this from a 1987 radio interview).
I accept pretty much everything from Enterprise, TOS, the less hokey elements of TAS, and the movies (but I ignore STV) as "factual".
TNG, and DS9 were 29th century holodramas loosely based upon the real-life exploits of Captains Picard and Sisko and their respective crews. Such details as O'Brian's rank, the pajama-like uniforms, children on ships, and the configuration of the vessels themselves resulted from a combination of erroneus record keeping and arbitrary decisions of the holodramas' production staffs.
The death of Captain James Kirk on Veridian III and the fate of Captain Montgomery Scott were partially the result of the temporal cold war's efforts to weaken-if not outright destroy-the Federation (and were ultimately rectified when Captain Archer ended the crisis in 2160).
Captain Picard left the Nexus with a Nexus Clone of Kirk, who remained stranded in the Nexus and was later rescued by Montgomery Scott, returning to the 23rd century after a year's absence.
I ignore Voyager and most of the novels, except for a few like The Pandora Principle and Dwellers in the Crucible(Others I shamelessly steal elements from and alter as needed).
My campaign is best described as a more consistent extension of the TOS/movies universe. Military elements are more in keeping with the movies and social/political problems are more realistic. Starfleet is a military, and as such has the idiocy and occasional bureaucratic nincompoopery one expects.
The Federation is vastly improved, but is no utopia, still occasionally struggling with issues like food supply and population (which Genesis was created to deal with),ideological differences, political self-interest, and our predisposition to violence ("I'm a killer, but I'm not going to kill today.").
- Galaxyquest replaces Trek in my campaign history as a media phenomenon in the late 20th century.
- An early Federation cruiser, the NX class USS Excalibur NX-57, was present when the surface of Altair V was laid waste by the misuse of Preserver artifacts by Dr. Edward Morbius in 2180.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot diggety damn, what a great pair of ideas!
I'm inclined to borrow these!:D :D
So, if Galaxyquest is "Trek" in the Star Trek universe, how often should an adventure remind a PC (one that is sick enough to watch 20th century TV) of a Galaxy Quest episode? :D
"Ensign Jones was just killed by a lava monster! This is just like Episode 81 of Galaxyquest!" :D
Or does he or she wake up during the night screaming, "I'm not crewman Number 6, I'm not crewman Number 6!"
I like the Galaxy Quest idea. I shall now shamelessly steal it.:D :D
I use TNG, DS9, and Voyager as the setting. TOS is history, along with the movie era. If it appeared on screen it's Gospel. Beyond that, I just maintain internal consistency in my campaign.
I'm really enjoying all these posts!
I started as fairly rigid, canon-is-canon kinda guy. I felt that, if it was on screen, I had to accept it, even the parts that might not be everyone's cup of tea.
I do know my players were getting really tired of hearing, "You can't do that, because in TNG..." and so on.
The only thing that ever really swayed me was when a player said, "It's only a tv show!":) That worked. I figured that if we got too rigid, it'd stop being fun.
As I mentioned earlier, Rick Berman as much as said that TNG was in a different (or at least reconfigured ) Trek universe anyway (that's tv for ya), so our consciences are at ease (okay, so maybe two things).
Besides, if something really doesn't work out, we can always blame it on that nasty ol' Temporal Cold War and eventually fix things. :D After all, we're in this to have fun!
On a personal note, I finally managed to quit smoking and now I get sick. :rolleyes:
Guess I'll add my 2 latinum slips worth...
I use all of TNG and DS9 as the basis for my campaigns. TOS as well, though I've never run an episode that had any connection to the original series. The only thing I'd use from VOY would be the EMH.
The Encyclopedia, the TNG Tech Manual, the DS9 Tech manual, Star Charts, Chronology, Star Trek: The Magazine, and a couple other publications are all sources I use as well, pretty much to the letter.
I read some of the novels, but I don't use them for much more than idea generators. I like the current DS9 relaunch novels, and will likely pull some ideas from them for my next campaign.
In my campaign, everything which made it to the big or little screen is in-continuity. It has to be that simple for me. I as GM have to create a common shared image of the universe with my players. So I have to have a simple rule. The players and I thus have the same image of what has happened. I don't want to argue about this movie sucked or something is confusing and thus shouldn't be in continuity. Thus, the Animated Episodes, ST5, everything.
In real life, confusing and unentertaining stuff happens. I can't say "I was bored Sunday. It sucked. It didn't happen." Or "that thing my friend idly said yesterday didn't match the news report. Obviously god has no sense of continuity and one of those events must not have really happened." Everythings in-continuity, and (for example) Enterprise has been PERFECTLY in accordance to established on-screen continuity. PERFECTLY. It's just violated a lot of stuff certain fans _assumed_, but was not supported by on-screen stuff.
I use: TOS, TNG, DS9(with changes)
TAS I use, but change the over the top things.
I use many novels either whole or pick bits and pieces.
The Federation switches between being allied to the Klingons or Romulans as needed.
Energy weapons are the exception rather than the rule, the species we've seen have them but most others use firearms.
We don't have a budget so aliens will usually have more than a forehead ridge difference.
I use every series I've seen or read about (since Voyager has not been aired in my country yet) as a continuity guideline, but I allow myself to change some events if I don't like them (in that case, I warn the players who know the series).
For instance, the super gun Ezri investigated about in DS9 will probably never exist in my game's universe (don't want my players to find one :p), and the Ferengi Nagus will remain the way he was when he first appeared on the show (cunning, ruthless and clever), and no Nagus Rom ever (though I could allow Ferengi females to participate in business).
OTOH, I like to keep what I call "Trek flavor" to my games - even when if it isn't realistic at all. For instance, aliens are mostly humanoid with bumps on the face, and the Captain never hesitate to send all the senior officers (even when one could wonder what they'd have to do here) on away missions.
As for novels, they are mainly sources for plot ideas, but I can use some of them as canon when they give some explanations about something that was never shown in the series.
I'm a stickler for canon.
I'll use it as far as I can and if thats not far enough then I'll tweak but not change ;)
I stick to cannon as much as possible but not to the point that it becomes a straight-jacket.
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY are all in as well as all the movies. The only thing I ignore is the animated series, because well it was a cartoon.
If their is information which is contradictory then I simply state that their was a "historical mistake" and the accounts weren't properly written out and I try to complete the info.
ENT is still 50-50 for me, I use some of what they have, but not all of it.
I actually almost completely stick to canon. It's like a security measure not to ent up in power gaming, when letting the players do things. I want my series take place in the same universe as the series are set in, which makes my players more happy, when encounting some guest stars of the TV shows.
So how do you deal with contradictions? Do you use a hierarchy of preference (i.e., TNG, DS9, TOS, movies, VOY, Enterprise, perhaps), with the reference earlier in the list taking precedence? Or just rule on each contradiction individually?Quote:
Originally posted by Diamond
In my campaign, everything which made it to the big or little screen is in-continuity. It has to be that simple for me. I as GM have to create a common shared image of the universe with my players. So I have to have a simple rule. The players and I thus have the same image of what has happened. I don't want to argue about this movie sucked or something is confusing and thus shouldn't be in continuity. Thus, the Animated Episodes, ST5, everything.
OK, maybe my 'Trek lore is insufficient, but isn't Klingon-human first contact described in one of the other series (TOS or TNG, i think) with enough detail, both in date and happening, to contradict the Enterprise pilot ep?Quote:
and (for example) Enterprise has been PERFECTLY in accordance to established on-screen continuity. PERFECTLY. It's just violated a lot of stuff certain fans _assumed_, but was not supported by on-screen stuff.
Not really no. Riker (or somebody) mentions that Humans and Klingons met "two hundred years ago" or something like that and that the disastrous first contact led to the Prime Directive. That's about it.Quote:
Originally posted by woodelf
OK, maybe my 'Trek lore is insufficient, but isn't Klingon-human first contact described in one of the other series (TOS or TNG, i think) with enough detail, both in date and happening, to contradict the Enterprise pilot ep?
Hey, why not ? Robert Bloch was a member of the "Lovecraft Circle" of correspondents and he wrote the TOS ep "What Little Girls Are Made Of." In that episode, the android Ruk always speaks of "The Old Ones Who Made Us."Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
. . . I also think of the Call of Cthulhu tales as canon in my games. :D
Creepy, ain't it ?
You know; In keeping with Owens idea that the Animated Series was infact a dramatisation of the missions of James T Kirk, made in the 24th century.. then maybe 'The Original Series' is a dramitisation of the life and times of James T Kirk's first 5 year mission, beamed into the brain of Gene Roddenberry, in Earths 1960's - and so explaining all of the original shows internal continiuty and make-up errors :D
just a thought :)
McCoy said that there had been fifty years of hostile relations. But that doesn't mean that the hostile relations had to start at first contact. Anyway, he's a doctor dammit, not a historian. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by woodelf
OK, maybe my 'Trek lore is insufficient, but isn't Klingon-human first contact described in one of the other series (TOS or TNG, i think) with enough detail, both in date and happening, to contradict the Enterprise pilot ep?
Picard said that the first contact with the Klingons was disasterous, but didn't give a date. Now the events in Broken Bow were hardly a disaster so that does look odd. There are two possible explanations:
1. Picard has 200 years of hindsight and can see consequences on the first contact that haven't happened yet in Enterprise.
2. As this is a pre-Federation event maybe Picard was referring to the first contact between Vulcans and Klingons (or Andorians and Klingons, Tellarites and Klingons, etc.) which would have been earlier than Broken Bow and which may have been a disaster. Picard is quite likely to see things from a Federation perspective rather than a human one.
Here are both sides.
WHY CANON IS GOOD
-- Provides continuity. This is important, because a strong element of sci-fi (some would say its defining element) is its examination of the effects of technology on people. To see effects, you must have consequences, which means you must have continuity.
-- Gives players easily-identifiable handles. Players can come to the table with a ready-built notion of what a Vulcan is, what an Excelsior-class starship can do, and why James T. Kirk is important.
-- Provides ready-made situations and characters. You can have important people from the shows appear in your game, and you can run with spin-offs of story elements that weren't resolves.
WHY CANON IS BAD
-- Confining; we know a lot about Vulcans and it's an uphill battle to convince your players when something "moves against type."
-- Problematic if your players know the setting better than you. They're likely to challenge your material because they see the canon, not the Narrator, as the final authority on the setting.
-- Self-contradictory: I don't have to tell you how many times we see something come up that conflicts with stuff we've already had "established" in the history of Star Trek.
J.H.
That sums it up neatly and succictly.
However, with regards to too much geeky knowledge on the history and or cultural morrays of a culture in Startrek can also work against your players too. Who's going to suspect a Vulcan assasin? Or equally who is going to suspect that the Ferengi is innocent of stealing or ripping someone off? There are always exceptions, and steryotypes are just that.
Becoming bogged down in a cultural incident or a historical soft fact (well it used to be hard untill episode 23 of....) which is why it's best to leave them alone if you can! :)