> When I first started subscribing to the Glorantha Digest (perhaps 10
> years ago) I had no idea that any part of Glorantha outside of Prax
> and Trolls was written up. Of course I understood almost none of the
> digest's output initially but was sufficiently intrigued by the
> enigmatic references it contained to persevere.
>
> Knowing that there were publications out there that I didn't own,
> didn't deter me. Instead it encouraged me. It suggested that there
> was a wealth of material which could enhance my games if I wanted to
> use it and that the world had real depth. However, my favourite
> acronym at the time was not GRoY or FS but YGMV - Your Game My Vary.
> This implied that owning the "complete set" was neither a requirement
> or even a recommendation and that variations from Greg Stafford's
> canonical vision were not only allowed but encouraged. Holes in my
> Gloranthan library were, on the whole, left unfilled and that didn't
> trouble me one bit.
>
> I therefore wonder if we're not getting a bit carried away worrying
> about which works we should reference and which we shouldn't. I can't
> be the only one who will be intrigued rather than frustrated.
>
> I do think a FAQ should be included in the Files section though. I
> can't tell you how long it took me to discover what some of the
> acronyms stood for! Having a crib sheet defining the terms and
> including a brief MIG (Meints Index to Glorantha, a guide to
> Gloranthan publications) style description of each product would have
> made my life a lot easy. A What Every Gloranthphile Knows sheet
> perhaps?
I completely agree with everything Ross says, except that there is a list that already exists to accomodate all of this.
It's called the Glorantha Digest.
Can't we just use it as advertised, please ?
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail