Ok, I'm sure I'm being dense.
I thought I knew in general what it means if not what words it actually stands for.
However, I've seen it being used in a couple of different posts for what seems to me to be completely different things.
So what does 'retcon' actually stand for?
Retroactively configuring a scenario or outcome. Basically, it means changing something after it has happened so that it has a different outcome. I hope that helps.
Hmm... thx.
Ok, then I think some of the posts are using it incorrectly.
I see it alot for 'well this ability didn't work as well as I thought so going to retcon my PC this way...'
configure? yes
retroactively? no
|
I'll add to that a bit, and changing things in the past so they work now. For example, after an a fight, someone forgets to pick up a weapon they had disarmed. The DM assumes they forgot it, the players assumed it was so obvious that they retrieved it after the fight, the didn't mention it, and in the next fight, it becomes an issue. So, to jsut get over it, the DM "retcons it" so that they did in fact pick up the weapon.
retroactive continuity.
I'll add to that a bit, and changing things in the past so they work now. For example, after an a fight, someone forgets to pick up a weapon they had disarmed. The DM assumes they forgot it, the players assumed it was so obvious that they retrieved it after the fight, the didn't mention it, and in the next fight, it becomes an issue. So, to jsut get over it, the DM "retcons it" so that they did in fact pick up the weapon.
Thats not retconning. Retcon: Player specifically stated he did NOT pick up the weapon and later its decided he actually did.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
It means "retroactive continuity". That is, whatever is being retconned is assumed to have always been that way. For example, say a new book comes out with an archetype that the player really wants to apply to his Ranger PC. After convincing his GM, he might "retcon" that his character is that archetype. For all the PCs, it's assumed that he always had that archetype, even though in reality he did not.
Thx folks.
I still say it doesn't make sense for some of the uses I've seen. But that shouldn't surprise me.
I've seen Retcon most actively used in MMO's, when there is established lore and the designers decide that rather than making more game play based on established lore, then instead go back and change established lore so they can make the game play be whatever they want.
Its sort of like "I don't really care what it used to say, we're changing it to say X now, and thats that."
Keeping in mind we're talking about imaginary worlds here, so they are literally changing the past.
Some of the current uses of it on the boards are in reference to them trying to actually change the past, with the possible outcomes even requiring them to go back and errata their own books to enforce the way the rule is going to work now.
Another example of a retcon would be anything in the Innersea World Guide that conflicts with the old 3.5 golarion books they published.
-S
(mild humor)
Like, for instance when Michael Bay says "No, there actually never was any radioactive ooze, the Ninja Turtles really came from space. Also, they're not teenagers."
(real example)
Like, for instance, when George Lucas says "Darth Vadar made C3PO when he was a boy, and R2D2 has always had a jet pack."
|
(real example)
Like, for instance, when George Lucas says "Darth Vadar made C3PO when he was a boy, and R2D2 has always had a jet pack."
Actually, those are NOT retcons. Those are additional details being filled in after the fact. The original trilogy never specified who made C-3PO, and perhaps R2-D2's jet packs in his legs were broken/removed before he met Luke Skywalker, which is why he didn't have them in the original trilogy. Those details don't conflict with details that were previously known, so they don't change existing continuity.
Changing the original movie so that Greedo fired first *grumble*, and pretending it was always intended to be that way, was a retcon.
The term is used extensively in the world of comics. Many series and major universes (particularly Marvel and DC) have been running for an extremely long time and have had just tons of material produced for them, and as a result have accumulated an enormous amount of dubious, problematic, or out-of-fashion elements. Additionally, sometimes a writer wishes to just retell a story (such as Superman's origin story), but doesn't want to hew to every single detail previously established. These things combine to make retcons pretty common in comics. They're generally accepted as just sort of being part of the territory, although a lot of the time they still elicit the rage you'd expect.
Note that the term is often also applied to situations where, even when technically nothing inconsistant is presented, a significant historical event is reinterpreted. For example, let's say that it's an important part of continuity that Character A shot and killed Character B. If ten years later it was revealed that that whole scene was just an illusion, it's likely to be considered a retcon, even if that's largely consistant with what was portrayed. (And it's more likely to be considered a retcon if the decision is unpopular.)
Of course Han shot first, how else would he get his extra sneak attack damage?
Retcon can apply to either CHANGING an established history or simply ADDING to an establish history with unknown details.
An example of a retcon that adds unknown details would be where Bilbo found a magic ring in The Hobbit that was retconned in Lord of the Ring to be The One Ring.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Retcon can apply to either CHANGING an established history or simply ADDING to an establish history with unknown details.
An example of a retcon that adds unknown details would be where Bilbo found a magic ring in The Hobbit that was retconned in Lord of the Ring to be The One Ring.
That's not what the term means. You have to change something for it to be a retcon. An addition is by definition NOT a change. Therefore, an addition is not a retcon.
Retcon can apply to either CHANGING an established history or simply ADDING to an establish history with unknown details.
An example of a retcon that adds unknown details would be where Bilbo found a magic ring in The Hobbit that was retconned in Lord of the Ring to be The One Ring.
I disagree with notion that adding previously untold detail is retcon. Contradicting established facts is.
An example of a retcon that adds unknown details would be where Bilbo found a magic ring in The Hobbit that was retconned in Lord of the Ring to be The One Ring.
Hollywood might work that way, but Prof T was a much better storyteller: he had it planned from the start.
An example of a retcon that adds unknown details would be where Bilbo found a magic ring in The Hobbit that was retconned in Lord of the Ring to be The One Ring.Hollywood might work that way, but Prof T was a much better storyteller: he had it planned from the start.
Actually, my copy of The Hobbit specifically notes that it's based on a version with revisions to chapter 4 or 5, whichever one is "Riddles in the Dark," to make it fit better with LotR. Tolkien updated material in the first book in later printings to make it fit better with LotR.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit#Revisions):
In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum willingly bets his magic ring on the outcome of the riddle-game, and he and Bilbo part amicably.[9] In the second edition edits, to reflect the new concept of the ring and its corrupting abilities, Tolkien made Gollum more aggressive towards Bilbo and distraught at losing the ring. The encounter ends with Gollum's curse, "Thief! Thief, Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!" This presages Gollum's portrayal in The Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien sent this revised version of the chapter "Riddles in the Dark" to Unwin as an example of the kinds of changes needed to bring the book into conformity with The Lord of the Rings, but he heard nothing back for years. When he was sent galley proofs of a new edition, Tolkien was surprised to find the sample text had been incorporated.[24] In The Lord of the Rings, the original version of the riddle game is explained as a "lie" made up by Bilbo under the harmful influence of the Ring, whereas the revised version contains the "true" account.[25] The revised text became the second edition, published in 1951 in both the UK and the US.[26]
That would be a prime example of Retroactive Continuity.