Retcon Reset (Volume 1): Back Up HOW Much?

[Malich]

All the way.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

[Diablo48]

I voted back to the beginning because if you need to change something you should really go back as far as you need to to make it right.  It would also be nice to clean up the early history because there are a ton of inconsistencies that have popped up the between real world and BT which could really use some attention, especially technologies that seem to be better today than they are in BT.

[Lorcan Nagle]

I say right back to the present day. Add things we know from the last 25 years of real word history. Technology updates to things. I love the game and the universe, but some of the 'Future of the 80's' business bothers me some times, especially in older stories. I don't see any real reason for a major change in how the events of the BTU as we know it went down. Oh, some tweaking here and there would be good, but major events and the main wars can still happen. Even the 'Mad max' feel of the late succession wars can be done if the writers put a bit of work into it.

but then in 20 years time do you have to retcon it again so it's not the Future of 2013?

[Diablo48]

but then in 20 years time do you have to retcon it again so it's not the Future of 2013?

That would depend on how the retcon is structured.  If you are vague about historical events in the near future you can avoid problems with those entirely which just leaves technology, and that can be sort of woven into newer source material like how canon BT tech is better now than it was a few decades ago thanks to redefinitions of how things work.

[Paint it Pink]

If you have to ask then I'd say it's only worth doing if you go the whole hog.

[mbear]

Never. Once you start resetting your universe, you will always be tempted to do it whenever things get tough. (See DC Comics and their habit of restarting every 5 years or so.) If your writers are good enough you can get out of any situation. Fortunately CGL has some good writers on staff.

[Atlas3060]

Wow having this type of poll in the CAY area of the forums was a fun way to wake up today.  :o
I'm with the majority that I don't really feel the need for a retcon, but if there was one I'd want it in the Age of War.
There was so much out there still not explored and also so much in the past. Maybe they did have better ships before a horrible event in time screwed it up and we're reduced to the piddling amounts of ships we have now.
Maybe they did have some neat Retrotech innovations.
Maybe this House leader really did choose Jiff like choosy moms have done in the past.
From there it can ripple as far as we'd like into other time frames.

[nckestrel]

I put no retcon reset.  Partially by the definitions.  If it's major, then I don't want it retconned.  If it's minor, then it doesn't count and you can retcon back to the Stone Age (with literal stone tools, not Devlin Stone).
Changing the date of a weapon introduction, minor and doesn't count. More minor?  Somebody was too young in year X to do action Y and either their birth date is changed or having somebody else do action Y.  (As long as it doesn't cause something else that is major).  Whether regiment X was formed in the Star League or in the Succession Wars. (see Night Stalkers).

Retconning out the existence of battlemechs, major and shouldn't happen.  Ok, maybe that's too obvious?  Operation Bulldog and the destruction of Clan Smoke Jaguar is major and shouldn't change.  The fall of the Star League.  The formation of the Republic of the Sphere.   

 

[HABeas2]

Hello,

The nature and severity of the retcon/retcons in question have yet to be introduced as a subject at this time. Still, it should be noted that the further back a significant retcon is set (this poll applies to significant retcons only, not minor detail stuff like colors of a state logo, names of individual regiments, or even the look of the Unseen), the more dramatic the impact will be.

The retcons may affect everything from aesthetics (the look of Mechs, vehicles, and aerospace units), to story (which factions have what styles of character, who fought what wars where and when, how bad the conflicts got, and so on), to game rules (changes to weapon ranges, damage resolution, dice mechanics, and the like).

Again, the factors of what a retcon might affect and how significant it is will be addressed in a separate poll; this one asks only how far back does one find such changes acceptable. All the way to start may invalidate the entire collected works of BattleTech ever published. More recent changes may leave most of them untouched.

Hopefully, that helps clarify.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

[Martius]

I still say all the way back.

I then see if I like the changes and then decide if I roll with them or not.  ;)

[kroner]

I voted for "Age of War".  I think it would be interesting to *consider* tweaks to the rise of neofeudalism, the introduction of the Battlemech and what that meant for interstellar governance, warfare, etc.  In particular, I think it would be better to have major factions develop dynasties that more closely mirrored European history wherein major Houses dominated for a period of time, rather than an 800 year sweep.  I think it would be interesting to have Comstar be a much older entity as well.

[foxbat]

Herb's latest post here makes me think... I'll rather be cautious on this one. No retcon for me please.

[Cateran]

"Leave Brittney Alone!"  :'(

errr....

Leave it alone. Errata to fix some minor inconsistencies is one thing. Making a major change that alters the universe is a nogo.

I don't like the Republic of the Sphere and the Dark Age. I originally hated the Jihad, but grew to accept it as information came out.

But those are my opinions. Other fans have theirs. I suspect many of the opinions are factional ("I luv me some Liao, so I want the FedSuns to be weaker.") or based on favored style of play ("I luv me some LAMs, so lets make entire SLDF regiments of them!"). There's a strong possibility that my personal preferences are affected this way as well. Which is why I voted to leave things alone.

As others have stated, once you open the retcon genie, the temptation will always be there to do it again whenever styles change (just look at all of the Batman movies), a storyline snag pops up, or the real world invents a new gadget that wasn't anticipated 25+ years ago.

[Lorcan Nagle]

That would depend on how the retcon is structured.  If you are vague about historical events in the near future you can avoid problems with those entirely which just leaves technology, and that can be sort of woven into newer source material like how canon BT tech is better now than it was a few decades ago thanks to redefinitions of how things work.

I was just thinking of the technological aspect of it.  At the rate we're redefining information usage and integration, it's very hard to picture what technology will be like in 50 years, let alone 1,000.  I'd rather pick a set point and let things go from there than redefine that point later, only for it to look equally out of date in 20-30 years time.

[Diablo48]

Hello,

The nature and severity of the retcon/retcons in question have yet to be introduced as a subject at this time. Still, it should be noted that the further back a significant retcon is set (this poll applies to significant retcons only, not minor detail stuff like colors of a state logo, names of individual regiments, or even the look of the Unseen), the more dramatic the impact will be.

The retcons may affect everything from aesthetics (the look of Mechs, vehicles, and aerospace units), to story (which factions have what styles of character, who fought what wars where and when, how bad the conflicts got, and so on), to game rules (changes to weapon ranges, damage resolution, dice mechanics, and the like).

Again, the factors of what a retcon might affect and how significant it is will be addressed in a separate poll; this one asks only how far back does one find such changes acceptable. All the way to start may invalidate the entire collected works of BattleTech ever published. More recent changes may leave most of them untouched.

Hopefully, that helps clarify.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

All hail Herb, god of the non-answer. :D

In all seriousness, I do understand why you are evading this question.  Specifying the nature of the retcon would add a lot of pressure to people voting and would almost certainly create no votes from people who do not want that specific retcon but would be open to another option.

For example, someone may be opposed to changing the Clan Invasion to let the Clans win, but would be fine with a significant rule change for ground combat because it has happened several times for aerospace units and does not affect the universe significantly.  This person would then naturally vote "never" for retcons if they knew the change point was the Clan Invasion example but might vote yes if the rules change was suggested or to say they were open to some changes.

I was just thinking of the technological aspect of it.  At the rate we're redefining information usage and integration, it's very hard to picture what technology will be like in 50 years, let alone 1,000.  I'd rather pick a set point and let things go from there than redefine that point later, only for it to look equally out of date in 20-30 years time.

You can actually brush that aside with later fluff.  For example, I think that the Targeting Computer was intended to be mostly actual computing hardware when it was first introduced, but its fluff has since been changed so most of the mass is in aim-assist hardware attached to the weapons and the actual computer is tiny.  You can also retroactively introduce technologies that were previously never imagined into the universe like Blue Shield so technology is not that hard to keep up to date if you are clever about it.

[SethsMatches]

My two cents  :)

I was initially going to go with "all the way" but then thought of the 2nd Soviet Civil war changed my mind... The way it's described kind of sets the scene for the rest of BT for me in that it shows humanity taking the more violent course that underlies the BT universe. I kinda reminds me that I need to change my perspective when looking at BT and not apply 'real world' motivations to it.

In other words if a major retcon did happen I don't think it should be to make BT the 'future of today'. It should stay the 'other kind of future' that could have been if our own past had turned out differently.

'Inspired by' reality rather than 'based on' if that makes sense...

[nckestrel]

Hello,

The nature and severity of the retcon/retcons in question have yet to be introduced as a subject at this time.

I was just clarifying that I go to extremes in this particular subject.  All's fair in minor, nothing's fair in major.  Therefore I voted no going back for this poll.  In case the presumed later poll on retcon subject my answer seems contradictory (you said "no going back at all", then voted for half of these subjects to be retconned!) :)

[Rebel Yell]

Retcon is extremely appealing.  Go back as far as you need to, in order to have it work, but I think things went wrong after the early 3040's, as the War of 3039 was the last good thing in the BT universe.

My group started playing in late 86.  Over about 10 years, we slowed gamed our way along through the many conflicts and mercenary action the 3025-3039 time frame offered.  However, when the clans showed up, none of us liked all the stat creep or the storyline, so we kept going like there were no clans for a while.  After a few more years, we ended up drifting away though, since the whole BT universe was clan-war-centric.

Slow, gradual tech upgrades were good, and eventually working up to a conflict that included Comstar and WoB would have been doable, but the clans should never have existed, and nothing even remotely like Dark Age should ever have existed.

/rantoff.  I feel much better now.

[Lorcan Nagle]

You can actually brush that aside with later fluff.  For example, I think that the Targeting Computer was intended to be mostly actual computing hardware when it was first introduced, but its fluff has since been changed so most of the mass is in aim-assist hardware attached to the weapons and the actual computer is tiny.  You can also retroactively introduce technologies that were previously never imagined into the universe like Blue Shield so technology is not that hard to keep up to date if you are clever about it.

I think we're looking at this crossways.  I'm not talking about changing the fluff of existing weapons to clarify they do this or that.  (Eliminating the "for 6 tons I'd expect more than 256 colours" Targeting computer joke). I'm talking about the idea that we change BattleTech from the Future of the 80s to the Future of some other timeframe, in order to prevent the idea of technology marching on.  But IMO, when you do that, you just leave yourself open to the risk of retconning again in another 20 years when your future looks horribly outdated once more. 

So, let's say hypothetically we retcon BT's background to make the tech level more of an exrapolation of modern-day technology.  And we retain the Blue Shield, and we leave the Blue Shield introduction date as 3055 or so.  And then in real life a similar device gets invented in 2021.  Do you then retcon the universe again so the Blue Shield is a mature, thousand-year-old technology?

Looking at BattleTech's fluff, there's sections where hundreds of megabytes are referred to as a lot of data - notably Natural Selection, where the Assassin's home computer is very similar to the modern desktop PC.  If we retcon that so it's terabytes or petabytes, what happens if exabyte-level data storage becomes commonplace?  and for that matter, the desktop and laptop are fading away as a standard.  If we were to retcon BattleTech's background so everyone has phones or tablets as their primary interface to cloud-based storage and applications, what happens when that paradigm radically shifts?

[Diablo48]

I think we're looking at this crossways.  I'm not talking about changing the fluff of existing weapons to clarify they do this or that.  (Eliminating the "for 6 tons I'd expect more than 256 colours" Targeting computer joke). I'm talking about the idea that we change BattleTech from the Future of the 80s to the Future of some other timeframe, in order to prevent the idea of technology marching on.  But IMO, when you do that, you just leave yourself open to the risk of retconning again in another 20 years when your future looks horribly outdated once more. 

So, let's say hypothetically we retcon BT's background to make the tech level more of an exrapolation of modern-day technology.  And we retain the Blue Shield, and we leave the Blue Shield introduction date as 3055 or so.  And then in real life a similar device gets invented in 2021.  Do you then retcon the universe again so the Blue Shield is a mature, thousand-year-old technology?

Looking at BattleTech's fluff, there's sections where hundreds of megabytes are referred to as a lot of data - notably Natural Selection, where the Assassin's home computer is very similar to the modern desktop PC.  If we retcon that so it's terabytes or petabytes, what happens if exabyte-level data storage becomes commonplace?  and for that matter, the desktop and laptop are fading away as a standard.  If we were to retcon BattleTech's background so everyone has phones or tablets as their primary interface to cloud-based storage and applications, what happens when that paradigm radically shifts?

Ok, first thing first.  History progression and technology progression are two separate topics so I will discuss them separately and explain how you can structure a retcon to minimize or eliminate the need for future changes.

First is history.  This is very easy to leave fuzzy because you can just leave details on the near future fuzzy.  Thus there will be no canon information to be contradicted by real world developments so if something unexpected happens like the US splitting into two countries it will not cause serious problems.  This is easier to do when you are starting development and can deny information in the first place, but even so you could publish a new timeline for the early years which dismisses some of the previous canon events which cannot work like the stuff about the Soviet Union and other near-term events which specify things too much.

Second is technology.  This is similarly easy to play with if you are clever by simply not mentioning specific numbers.  For example, the data descriptions can be changed from "megabytes" to "enormous amounts of data" which is always subjective and therefore does not get overrun by technology.  The other side of this is the portable computing shift which can easily be limited by ruggedness, ease of manufacture, wireless network vulnerability, and the simple need for a full sized keyboard with tactile feedback.  The other thing is there are some details like numbers which can be retroactively attributed to in-character errors or simply ignored, and introduction dates can be changed if needed.  The other thing that can be done is retroactively roll some equipment into what is already on 'Mechs like ECM, so if a Blue-Shield-like system were to be introduced in 2021 you could just say that was built into every 'Mech already and penetrating that was the reason it took so long to develop useful PPCs, or failing that it you could change the introduction date and fluff of a system without really changing anything important.

[Lorcan Nagle]

Second is technology.  This is similarly easy to play with if you are clever by simply not mentioning specific numbers.  For example, the data descriptions can be changed from "megabytes" to "enormous amounts of data" which is always subjective and therefore does not get overrun by technology.  The other side of this is the portable computing shift which can easily be limited by ruggedness, ease of manufacture, wireless network vulnerability, and the simple need for a full sized keyboard with tactile feedback.  The other thing is there are some details like numbers which can be retroactively attributed to in-character errors or simply ignored, and introduction dates can be changed if needed. 

Some of this I agree with - note that Shadowrun has moved away from giving file sizes for applications or data.  There is a level of futureproofing you can do, but it's still not going to stop everything. 

The other thing that can be done is retroactively roll some equipment into what is already on 'Mechs like ECM, so if a Blue-Shield-like system were to be introduced in 2021 you could just say that was built into every 'Mech already and penetrating that was the reason it took so long to develop useful PPCs, or failing that it you could change the introduction date and fluff of a system without really changing anything important.

But let's say we retcon technology tomorrow, so BattleTech is now the future of 2012, and ECM is more important than armour and so on.  And in 2 years time we invent shields, by 2020 every fighting vehicle has shields and BattleTech looks hopelessly outdated.  Do we now retcon BattleTech again so it's the future of 2020, and 'mechs always had shields?  And what happens in 2040 when the next major technological protection comes along?

And that's the crux of my problem.  if you make BattleTech more contemporary now, that means it'll look outdated again in the future.  So why not just leave it looking outdated now and expend the effort elsewhere?

[Diablo48]

Some of this I agree with - note that Shadowrun has moved away from giving file sizes for applications or data.  There is a level of futureproofing you can do, but it's still not going to stop everything.

True, but it still goes a long way towards keeping things working down the line.

But let's say we retcon technology tomorrow, so BattleTech is now the future of 2012, and ECM is more important than armour and so on.  And in 2 years time we invent shields, by 2020 every fighting vehicle has shields and BattleTech looks hopelessly outdated.  Do we now retcon BattleTech again so it's the future of 2020, and 'mechs always had shields?  And what happens in 2040 when the next major technological protection comes along?

And that's the crux of my problem.  if you make BattleTech more contemporary now, that means it'll look outdated again in the future.  So why not just leave it looking outdated now and expend the effort elsewhere?

There are two key problems with this.  First, you are not looking at the historic interplay between weapons and armor.  Throughout history there has been a cyclical pattern of improving weapons and improving armor which results in combat going back and forth between one-shot-kill capability on both sides to nearly impenetrable defenses.  We are currently in a one-shot-kill phase which makes it tricks like ECM critical to avoid being hit, however whenever defenses get to the point that they take a lot of luck/work to get through heavy ECM will loose some of its value because you could replace it with a bigger gun or more armor to get a comparable combat effectiveness (this is not to say it will disappear, however it will fade into the background).  BattleTech on the other hand is in a phase where armor has the advantage which is why you see 'Mechs taking repeated hits with little trouble and why ECM is a much less critical part of combat.  This means there is no reason to assume one-shot-kill capabilities and active defenses like ECM are critical on the battlefield in BT even building from modern technology.

Second, you are assuming that something can fundamentally replace armor which is simply false.  The traditional Star Trek energy shields are simply not physically possible, so every futuristic defense scheme that involves taking hits (meaning no assumed one shot kills) relies heavily on armor.  The materials and construction may vary, but at the end of the day that is the kind of detail that can be left vague just like the file sizes you mentioned in Shadowrun.

[Pa Weasley]

Just because of how dangerously open ended the question is I had to go cautious and opt for cold dead hands. I know Herb already mentioned that the nature of a retcon is not up for discussion at this point, but it makes an enormous difference in my vote. Tweaks to put the unseen issue to bed for all time or patch over hilariously out of date tech references? Have at it, do whatever you must. Radically altering in-universe history? Please leave well enough alone. It's not that I don't trust CGL to do a fantastic job, but part of what's so wonderful about BattleTech is the rich universe that's developed over the last quarter century. Please don't set that aside. 

[wackrabbit]

I'm pretty happy with everything thus far.

I'm not really interested in navel gazing, I just want to be part of the game as it unfolds.

Saying a retcon is necessary presumes that the existing story is somehow inadequate, which IMHO isn't so. So cold dead hands, sir.

[Diablo48]

I'm pretty happy with everything thus far.

I'm not really interested in navel gazing, I just want to be part of the game as it unfolds.

Saying a retcon is necessary presumes that the existing story is somehow inadequate, which IMHO isn't so. So cold dead hands, sir.

There are always problems and inconsistencies that pop up in everything, and BattleTech is no exception.  My best guess is they were working on some historical stuff set before the Star League and ran into serious problems with existing canon because that era has not received nearly as much attention as the later periods and would thus be more susceptible to dates not lining up, conflicting sources, and other issues which may need to be thrown out to make room for a new book on the subject.

[ianargent]

The poll basically shows it's all or nothing as a preferred option right now...Makes sense.

[Bergie]

I say keep it the way it is.  Retconning certain items (making planet discriptions make sense, etc) I'm fine with, but ultimately I see no need to do sweeping changes.

[Lorcan Nagle]

There are two key problems with this.  First, you are not looking at the historic interplay between weapons and armor.  Throughout history there has been a cyclical pattern of improving weapons and improving armor which results in combat going back and forth between one-shot-kill capability on both sides to nearly impenetrable defenses.  We are currently in a one-shot-kill phase which makes it tricks like ECM critical to avoid being hit, however whenever defenses get to the point that they take a lot of luck/work to get through heavy ECM will loose some of its value because you could replace it with a bigger gun or more armor to get a comparable combat effectiveness (this is not to say it will disappear, however it will fade into the background).  BattleTech on the other hand is in a phase where armor has the advantage which is why you see 'Mechs taking repeated hits with little trouble and why ECM is a much less critical part of combat.  This means there is no reason to assume one-shot-kill capabilities and active defenses like ECM are critical on the battlefield in BT even building from modern technology.

Second, you are assuming that something can fundamentally replace armor which is simply false.  The traditional Star Trek energy shields are simply not physically possible, so every futuristic defense scheme that involves taking hits (meaning no assumed one shot kills) relies heavily on armor.  The materials and construction may vary, but at the end of the day that is the kind of detail that can be left vague just like the file sizes you mentioned in Shadowrun.

I'm not talking about specifics, which is why I said earlier that I think we're talking at cross purposes.  You can fugde the specific of technology, but you can't protect against radical pradagim shifts.  So when you retcon technology to make closer to contemporary tech, that just means it'll seem outdated again in the future.

[ShadowRaven]

Well, when I said retcon right back to the begining, I meant to do it in such a way that doesn't really invalidate the history and story we have now, just tweaks it a little. Cut out hard numbers, maybe add in a few notes on why some things are, or where the way they are even though current real world technology may appear to surpass it. I don't want to see any huge changes anywhere. A few little ones however, over the course of everything, could work wonderfully.

[skiltao]

So, this is another fun poll for my curiosity (and yours). Suppose a retcon (retroactive continuity change) was inevitable, had to be done for some reason in the BattleTech universe. How far back in the setting would you--as a BattleTech player and general fan--consider the changes to be acceptable?

Anything you could hope to achieve by retconning past eras can be accomplished better, and with less headache, by instead building the new "current" era to the desired state. Use new "current" events, stats or locations as implicit analogues for any past material you can't let go of.

If the desired state can't be achieved without a retcon then you're probably overestimating how necessary it is.

If it can't be achieved without retcon, and it really is necessary, then you're better off starting from scratch. (I'm not sure if making a new universe counts as "never" or "all the way back" for purposes of this poll.)

...of course, I don't personally know that much about (for example) the Dark Age timeline, so I can't honestly say that I'd notice a major retcon to that period. Other fans probably have their own blindspots.

My best guess is they were working on some historical stuff set before the Star League and ran into serious problems with existing canon because that era has not received nearly as much attention as the later periods and would thus be more susceptible to dates not lining up, conflicting sources, and other issues which may need to be thrown out to make room for a new book on the subject.

My guess is that they're having trouble getting FASAnomics to work for Interstellar Operations.