First, I miss multi-qoute. I am well aware that conformity stifling creativity is a major theme of the game, hence my use of the phrase.

***

Secondly, I see there is a serious disconnect between my discussion of using the rules to do something and the belief that I am advocating for the same. The original poster asked is something was possible, I said maybe using AWM. My understanding of AWM was flawed and it isn't possible with the RAW. We then moved onto the usefulness of the AWM upgrade including how recoil might affect it. I offered that energy weapons would not have the same recoil problems that chemical projectiles would and used a specific example. Somehow the conversation was derailed from a discussion of rules into a discussion of why something would not happen in-game with a specific faction. I never said Space Marines should or would be walking around with dual shoulder mounted plasma guns (or dual shoulder mounted weapons of any kind).

Again slavish devotion to cannon limits your creativity. There is a difference between saying you cannot do X or Y would never happen because it would violate cannon and maintaining the verisimilitude of the fictional setting in question. Maintaining verisimilitude allows you the option of "violating" cannon as long as your reasoning for something is consistent with the internal logic of the fictional setting. Slavish devotion cannon does not allow you that freedom as you limit yourself to only what is currently written about the fictional setting, you cannot add to it beyond its existing strictures.

***

Before I continue, note that I never stated that players or GM's should mount twin plasma guns on every suit of armor or that Space Marines should. Per your logic argument, there are plenty of reason not to, especially given the Imperium and Mechanicums' attitudes and limitations regarding technology. They include tradition, weight, and logistics. The Tau are able to do so through superior technology, utilizing a larger weapons platform and their attitude to toward innovation. See below for my comment on the "munchkin factor", the same applies towards your mechanics argument (though its a different fallacy).

***

Argus Van Het,

Please take your red herring/ad hoc/false cause fallacies about munchkins somewhere else.

I never stated that you were advocating such an idea, but yes: The conversation has moved on from RAW.

***

Devotion to cannon and the queen of the battlefield is a very Russian thing... but it doesn't limit creativity. Sticking to canon might hamper the use of 21st Century thinking, but thinking in the same paradigms that we use daily isn't massively creative anyway. If it was, then playing in any game world but our own would be hampering creativity. eg: "We take the castle by getting past the guards posing as cable guys." "There are no cable guys in the Forgotten Realms." "**** you GM for stifling my creativity!" Clearly absurd, but a logical extension.

We play different settings in order to impose a new structure on our creativity. If we just then try to solve problems the 'obvious' way to us, we're not really doing anything new and exciting. The difference between our world and the other should -and is- the *inspiration* for our creativity. The creative challenge is to solve problems *within* canon. Heck: That's what I love about gaming: The challenge of having to solve problems with a completely new set of world rules and paradigms. [And that's what's crap about bad sci-fi authors: They break their own rules to come up with trite solutions which are not considered within a wider framework (ie Star Trek).]

Canon is a shared framework that we're all familiar with. We're all reading off the same page when we understand it, and we all elect to play within that framework and rules of the world. Otherwise we all end up playing 'what's in my imagination, the RPG', and all having differing frames of reference.

I'm not sure where the concept that following accepted canon equates to a slavish devotion crept in, but I'm not seeing the idea of saying 'no' to twin shoulder cannon as slavish to canon nor crushing creativity, no more than I would call a player in a Viking game deciding to mix sulphur, saltpeter and charcoal and putting a flame to it 'creative' (I'd call them a crap roleplayer, truth be told), or a player of a WWII wargame deciding to field an army consisting of 50 Tiger IIs and 20 Wirblewinds as anti-infantry weapons 'creative' (I'd call them a munchkin). It's not slavish to follow the accepted norms. You've gone to an extreme angle in your debate.

***

I'm afraid that I'm sticking to my guns re: munchkinism. You can roll out any number of hackneyed pseudo-intellectualisms to tritely try to dismiss it, but the fact remains that I've never seen anyone in a space marine game who wanted twin shoulder-mounted *anything* because it was a cool aid to roleplaying, a creative solution to a problem, or for thematic reasons. They did it because it was a kewl way of sidestepping rules, doing more damage, and racking up a massive bodycount, with no consideration of game-world concerns. That's pretty munchkin. Life is not a Venn diagram where we can wipe away debate by smugly stating that X is not logically related to Y when the mass of imperical evidence is otherwise indicative.

Siranui said:

You totally missed the point, bringing up "munchkinism" was a pointless distraction to an ongoing discussion. What does the discussion of "munchkinism" have to do with cannon and its affect on creativity? It really doesn't matter, since for the majority of this conversation about half your posts have been about things you think I stated not what I actually said and why they are wrong. Before labeling something a psuedo-intellectualism I suggest researching it. You would have found that those were types of fallacies found in logic, directly applicable to the attempt to derail the conversation. Which is now over as far as I am concerned. We have irreconcilable views on canon and creativity that make any further discussion pointless.

What? A pointless distraction like focusing on a single off-topic paragraph and criticising it for being off-topic while ignoring everything on-topic?

I know what Logic is, as insinuated by reference to Venn diagrams. I just get tired of seeing the same old phrases being rolled out in forums, in the manner in which you did. You can't -for example- move on giantitp without encountering a dozen people shouting 'straw man' or about whatever branch of logical fallacy they've dully learned in order to win friends and internet debates that week, from the comfort of their mom's basement. Quoting logical fallacies is not conversation. We don't develop ideas by simply telling other people that their opinion is illogical, but by sharing ideas and examples. Conversations evolve and move on from their start-point, and are not about scoring logical 'points', but about exchanging ideas, even when they are diametrically opposed. The concept that it's pointless to converse with someone because their opinion is polar to yours is bizarre and blinkered. There are lots of ideas on here that I'm opposed to, but they're worth studying because otherwise I would not have explored them.

Oh, and seeing as you're in a bit of a strop anyway; I may as well push aside the last vestiges of politeness, abandon the not-so-subtle hints, and just say it:

Canon, darn it. CANON. One N.

CaNNon are things on pirate ships.

No, what I'm tired of is defending a position that isn't mine nor one I necessarily subscribe to. I had no intention of being drawn into a distracting conversation about munchkinism. I did enjoy the conversation on creativity versus canon, but the conversation is at an end. I'm aware that conversations, well good ones anyway, are about the exchange of opinions and ideas and not winning points. I don't subscribe to a zero-sum policy in my interactions on message boards on in real life.

Siranui said:

What a total rookie mistake. Well-spotted, I can't believe I did that. Though it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. See your post prior to you last one (#26).

You mean this:

Siranui said:

The Queen of the battlefield is artillery [ie cannon], and Russia has always been very devoted to using vast amounts of it.

It was a hint. Touche.

Siranui said:

Ah, a double entendre. I must have been suffering from shellshock and missed it.