Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (
-   TAS Opinion Polls (
-   -   Should it be considered non-canon? (

robject October 17th, 2018 01:14 PM

Should it be considered non-canon?

Are some published Traveller books partly or completely non-canonical?

Lots of stuff published for Traveller. Some of it, in my mind, is suspect. I try to keep an open mind, though. But I want to spark a discussion over specific books.

If you've got a book that you think might not be canon, tell me, and I'll add it to this poll, and we'll see what people think about it.

whulorigan October 17th, 2018 01:21 PM

Apparently GT: Behind the Claw was accidentally published from a Draft version instead of the Final Release candidate, and has errors, if my understanding is correct.

whulorigan October 17th, 2018 01:26 PM

For Paranoia Press: Scouts and Assassins, I always liked the idea of using the Scouts presented there as the Grand Duchy of Trelyn's version of the IISS, the RDTS (Royal Duchy of Trelyn Scouts) operating in and around the Vanguard Reaches and The Beyond.

GURPS Traveller: Behind the Claw has some good ideas to mine, but you just need to be careful that you don't create unintentional canon conflicts, if that is important to your campaign. Some of its world descriptions also are at odds with some previously published canonical and non-canonical material (Mertactor for example).

robject October 17th, 2018 01:27 PM

I tried to think of more books to add for consideration. Any thoughts?

whulorigan October 17th, 2018 01:49 PM


Originally Posted by robject (Post 594339)
I tried to think of more books to add for consideration. Any thoughts?

Well, the section at the back of the T4: Core Rules has a starmap of Sylea's home subsector that is completely at odds with TravellerMap and all other renditions of the Core Sector, AFAIK. That is not an entire book, of course, just one section.

mike wightman October 17th, 2018 02:17 PM

It all depends upon what sort of setting you want to build - and of course MWM deciding what is and isn't canon.

Everything produced by GDW or marketed as such for CT is canonical - but not necessarily OTU setting canon. Even stuff that is tablet of stone canon is contradictory to other canon material.

There is a huge dichotomy between setting and rules.

How much MT setting material should be ditched due to it being totally implausible and not worthy of canon status - how about TNE and T4 material. Then there is MgT - how much of their 3I line should be considered canon?

By the way are we allowed to discuss this stuff in the open considering board rules and recent events?

nobby-w October 17th, 2018 03:15 PM

I think the hermeneutic does a pretty good job of explaining what is considered canon for the purposes of publishers, which are the folks canon was designed for.

'Canon is for publishers' said MWM at one point, or words to that effect. It's there to stop people from publishing things that are in conflict or incompatible with other published material. As I understand, that's really the be-all and end-all of its reason for existence. Unless you're planning to publish licensed OTU material everything else is house rules.

Having said that, there's no reason not to take some care to ensure your own material doesn't conflict with OTU canon. If you want to put something up on (for example) COTI then it does help if it plays nicely with the other published material. I've even done that with stuff I wrote, although I've had the nearly all of the LBBs for 30+ years and I'm familiar enough with them to do that without a lengthy research exercise. If you weren't so familiar it might not be worth the effort as it's a significant body of material to trawl through.

I'm tempted to say that this question has already been done to death and documented quite well. When I see a thread devolve into wittering about the minutae of OTU canon it makes me die a little inside.

If I was writing something for publication I would use the list of stuff in the Hermeneutic as a starting point to avoid clashes. Following that I might try to make it fit in with third party materials but I might not get so worked up. If Marc or someone with a vested interest interest in the integrity of the OTU canon argued about something I wrote then I would engage them and see what might be done to resolve the issue. In real publishing circles - especially those related to incumbent franchises - to-ing and fro-ing about this sort of stuff is par for the course. Lucasfilm has someone on the staff whose job it is to coordinate this for third party Star Wars material.

Of course, I'm not publishing licenced OTU material at this point so the question is moot.

timerover51 October 17th, 2018 10:18 PM

I understand that Adventure 4: Leviathan, was produced by Games Workshop in England, however it does bear the following statement.


This booklet is an adventure intended for use with Traveller, GDW's science-fiction role-playing game set in the far future.
The copyright on it is 1980, so it was before the 1981 edition of the Little Black Books. GDW, and apparently Marc, accepted it as canon at that point in time. Is it canon for the 1981 edition, probably not is some aspects, such as the message torpedoes, but at the time of publishing, it was canon. Clearly, it can be questioned now, but then so could a lot of the material that was published by GDW at that time, based on later versions of the rules.

Besides, I always liked the adventure, having bought it in hard copy those many years ago. Unless the players had a copy, they could not be quite sure what they were going to run into.

mike wightman October 18th, 2018 02:12 AM

A4 is canon for the OTU as it existed when A4 was written.

LBB1-3 77 - check
a frontier sector that is still being explored and developed as per the proto Spinward marches of S3 - check

The powers that be changed the setting, making much of the stuff in A4 ridiculous.

No jump torps - written out of the game
A totally unexplored sector adjacent to a subsector that has been settled by the Imperium for over a thousand years - snapity snap snap snap.

Grav_Moped October 18th, 2018 04:30 AM

... and unarmored 600-ton fighter carriers ("patrol frigates") as major combatant vessels, because you had to trade off size for performance at lower tech levels, and size didn't provide much combat advantage aside from resiliency against drive and fuel hits. Only with LBB5 did size alone enable more firepower; before that, carried craft were the only way to get more than 3 weapons/100Td.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.