James, thank you for sharing that with us. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm glad you decided to check us out, and hope you decide to stay. I look forward to seeing what products you have in the works.

By the way:

One of the goals in some of my future work being done for V&V/FGU is to accomodate the stories that have come before and recognize contributing creators who were fortunate to publish a V&V product. This means accounting for plots and characters that have come before which have influenced our player base and may influence the perception of the story at hand.

As a long time GM, I know that most campaigns are serial  and when GMs rely on module and supplements for support, GMs are vulnerable to the whims of other creative forces.

V&V should have a consistent universe where all our stories can be considered 'official canon'. Unless, every team of players has Dr. Dimensional in the group, it would be hard to integrate a flow of adventures for some GMs if in fact 'canon' doesn't include all published works. So far the people I've read to know on these boards don't make a distinction that (according to Jeff Dee) not everything published for V&V is 'canon'.

Not everyone's pencil hand writes or draws these fictions and I believe my gifts should be used that V&V's players will be presented with as many pieces to a cohesive  universe as can be had for the money.

I think we need that sort of unity in this game. The brand doesn't need divisive creators saying what belongs and what does not for the community to survive. Too many good creative men and women took too much time from their family and lives to have someone create some weird exclusivity to this cool game.

I pledge to leave it up to the GMs out there what they wish to include in their own universes regardless of what may publish from me and believe me when I say this:

My stories are 'canonical' works'; my stories are usually serial and intertwined and I am very serious about the characters I create...
I limit the amount of clowny characters and focus on believable quality.
I like soap operas and intrigue.
I like the "Oh yeaaaaaaaa, that guy!" response from a player... or...
the "Yea, that guy beat the snot out of me last time"....

And I'll be damned if after as many years as I gave to gaming sessions as a GM, or spent working as an editor, writer, artist, designer and/or art director if anyone is going to dispute that my (finally) published work is 'official' or not.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "canon," James.  Obviously, everything that everyone creates can't be part of the "official" V&V universe any more than everything that everyone created who played the Marvel Superheroes game became part of the Marvel universe.  Plus, as stifling as it might be to creativity, as Monkey House's lawyer, it's my job to protect Jeff and Jack's intellectual property, so I have to make sure the licenses and characters are protected.  But I'd love to talk to you about how your work might play a part in what we have planned at Monkey House.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 10:38am:


So, NOT referencing the creations of other writers without their permission constitutes "belittlement"?

Yeah, you're baffled all right.

-Jeff Dee
Monkey House Games

But there isn't any need to argue.  There are magnificent plans in the works for this game, and Jeff isn't trying to be the arbiter of the official canon of the V&V universe.  The simple truth is that Monkey House can't access characters over which it doesn't have clear legal rights (Nomad and Lightning-Fist come immediately to mind), but that doesn't mean those characters won't play a future in what's printed by Monkey House.  That's why I make the open offer for you and others to contact me.

I agree that there isn't any need to argue.  I understand how Jeff and company can't afford to consider everything 'official' or 'canon'; if he did he'd have to update (and change) that offical V&V timeline every other day.  With all of the published products - even from the original run back in the 80's - the "universe" starts getting unwieldy, and it becomes easier and easier to have contradictions and paradoxes.

On the other hand, I agree with James that most GMs are going to use all (if not most) of it, so it would be wise for any gaming company to keep in mind that the parts should fit together as an interesting whole.  This is why - if there's already six adventures that center around a circus - the publisher might recommend to the author that they should try a more unique setting (since most players will want to incorporate it as part of their campaign).

Majestic wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:


Even if Jeff Dee and Jack Herman don't own the copyrights to works by other authors, it's important not to contradict the other V&V materials.

Good Example: Trouble for Havoc is a module that was published with character conversions for V&V. That module includes a good organization called FORCE. Well we all know that two of the existing V&V modules have a villain/organization named FORCE. Granted, a GM can adapt--but it is better not to create the duplication.

Another example: The amazing module Pre-Emptive Strike mentions a psionic hero named the Rook, whose trainees were called the Rookies. Okay, that works. But it was problematic because the V&V rulebook already introduced the organization CHESS. It makes for a too-bureaucratic universe with two different sets of chess references.

Once question I've always had is why Most Wanted Vol. 1 by Jack Herman and Jeff Dee introduced the villain Leo as the corrupt ruler of Malawi. I went to school with a guy from Malawi and felt bad that V&V was picking on his country. 

Allen Shock wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 10:39pm:

Maybe. If Jack Herman wants to reply with the official word, that'd be cool. 

Troy... wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:


Ok, got it. Sorry.

Allen

Troy... wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

Well, it appears Malawi isn't official any more. It's now Malaia. (see page 29 of the rulebook).

I'd probably chalk it up to youthful ignorance in the pre-internet days.

Allen Shock wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:


Yeah! they could be V&V Earth-1, V&V Earth-2... wait a minute, didn't somebody do that already?

Darn, I am always scooped!

But seriously, in my world Helen Retro is still a very active and viable villain and any presence or absence of the word "official" won't change that!

Besides,  there's never an issue if two characters have the same name... or is there? http://www.thetick.ws/car7.html

Allen. You seem to be kool-aid drunk.
We're talking about the body of published works that preceeded the last two weeks.
This isn't about their personal campaigns at home with beer and friends. That's the proving ground, not the canon, anymore or less than Ken Cliffe's home campaign.

But Ken's published work speaks for itself as an integral part of the V&V universe...

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 12:44pm:


First of all, stopping with the insults would be a good idea.

Secondly, I was not talking about personal campaigns. I was talking about copyright ownership issues. Because the various authors retained ownership of their characters, they would need permission to use them or mention them.

Allen

No insult is intended.

I have not purchased V&V 2.1 yet since it is not available in print yet. But isn't all this bickering over what is cannon and what is not kind of pointless? The game is back! Do you remember fighting over this kind of thing 30 years ago? No we just enjoyed it for it's own value. Yes we don't want to see it go away again, but c'mon

Black Bolt wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 4:06pm:


That's kind of how I see it as well.  Many GMs do just that - have numerous campaigns going that are all independent of each other.

If someone writes or draws a published adventure, they should know that many (probably even most) V&V fans are going to use those characters in some way and incorporate them into their own campaign.  The Destroyers was a great example (and I see Allen has already answered the questions regarding them) on how difficult it is to include them into anything "official".

My own campaign is 20 years old.  In that time, we started out with C.H.E.S.S. just like it is in the rulebook, and over time it changed quite a bit.  Especially when the PCs got pissed at Homer Grimsby and felt that he used them for military-type duty on foreign soil (they were brutalized by the Chinalayan army in Assassin).  Years later, C.H.E.S.S. in our world became more international, and eventually they divided completely from the U.S.  They now (in our world) answer to the U.N. and are not an American institution.

To illustrate my point, I understand that this is only what happens in our world.  Also in our campaign Intercrime was very nearly destroyed entirely (wiped out over time by a rival criminal organization).  I still gobble up whatever products come out for V&V, and in our case Intercrime is making a slow comeback.  I simply use what stuff they say about CHESS and Intercrime that I can, and - where it contradicts my/our campaign, I change it.  I think this is true of many GMs.

I have to admit that it really would be cool if they did all weave into the same narrative.  I love it when you read about characters you know in the backgrounds and backstories of other characters.  It truly gives the feel of one universe and a shared continuity when you can do that.