Man the canon or damn the canon?

[Evan van Eyk]

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.

[woodelf]

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.

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?

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.

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?

[Doug Burke]

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?

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.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
. . . I also think of the Call of Cthulhu tales as canon in my games.

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."

Creepy, ain't it ?

[Tobian]

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

just a thought

[Identity Crisis]

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?

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.

Picard said that the first contact with the Klingons was disasterous, but didn't give a date. Now the events in <i>Broken Bow</i> 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 <i>Enterprise</i>.

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 <b>earlier</b> than <i>Broken Bow</i> and which may have been a disaster. Picard is quite likely to see things from a Federation perspective rather than a human one.

[Jesse Heinig]

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.

[Tobian]

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!