<rant>
The description of this group on it's Yahoo Home Page is:
"Discussion of Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha, the setting for the /HeroQuest/ role-playing game published by Issaries, Inc. Here we focus on how to play /HeroQuest/ (formerly /Hero Wars/) in Glorantha, and are especially concerned with introducing newer players to the game."
I take special note of the words 'play' and 'new players'.
A look back over the last month or so sees precious little of either. There is the usual mix of joy of community, helpfulness, self-absorbed slander, Greggish elaboration, twisting-the-dragon's-tail obfuscation, occasional quirkiness, blinding moments of insight, habitual trolling, and everyone-in-the-world-is-wrong-but-me speculation presented as hard fact. So what's different you might ask? Not much, to be sure, but I'm wondering if there's not another way. There's a continual evocation of deep background of limited immediate relevance to direct gameplay, and an argumentative level of esoteria bandied back and forth with little elaboration or explanation for anyone without the benefit of twenty years of constant reading in obscure Gloranthan publications.
In short, just like the Digest. :)
What would a newbie make of this? I ask because I see evidence around the place of a lot of renewed interest in the Lozenge because of RuneQuest and now, the availability of HQ materials in PDF form. I think a casual newbie's impression might include textual elitism, pedantic esotericism, and little concern at all with roleplaying or setting up a game. In short, a closed community.
I'm overstating of course. Don't get me wrong, I'm just much part of this as anyone, good or bad. I appreciate the considerable time Greg is devoting to engagement and elaboration, and I admire his patience and willingness to share. But we now have two almost identical major content lists - HQ and GD - differentiated only by their response time, and both seemingly focussed for the most part on Gloranthan background rather than campaign play.
There is also an insidious and insistent One-True-Gloranthaism creeping back into discussions, a form of text-based fundamentalism that is both alien and destructive of roleplaying creativity. At its worst, it denies us the freedom to generate our own understandings and myths and elaborate them in play. it glorifies the text over the spirit of play, structure over agency, and textual estoricism over roleplaying inspiration and insight. It makes a mockery of YGMV in both its soft and hard forms - Your Glorantha May/Must Vary. Personally, though I love a good background and nuanced understanding as much as anyone, I've always encouraged myself and others to make what some might call 'mistakes' - variations, alternatives, heresies in their campaigns. Big ones. Bold ones. Bad ones. Trust the story.
</rant>
Possible solutions? Don't know. I appreciate that Greg's insights sprawl across boundaries, and respect the role of our moderators in shaping the community. Reinstating the previous hard fought distinctions between GD and HQ might work. Setting up a small list for those whose love of esoteria is unsullied by mere gameplay might be an option. Or maybe simply renewing our commitment to open and growing communities where newbies and seasoned gamesters and scholars can thrive off each others insights in a creative and respectful way. Maybe we just need to remind ourselves there are new Gloranthan explorers looking for a community.
Mods? Crusties? Newbies? What do you think?
John
Anatidaephobia - The fear that somewhere, somehow, a duck is watching you.
Powered by hypermail