Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...> wrote:
>>
> --- Rick Meints <rjmeints_at_...> wrote:
> >Since you refer to an email from Greg,
> > which I have also seen, let me clarify what was
> > meant by
> > the word "elite". He meant people who contribute by
> > posting their ideas on news groups.
>
> ??? In what way can that group of people possibly be
> described as "elite"? All it takes is an internet
> connection and the ability to write semi-coherent
> English.
>
> > It is very obvious that you
> > have taken that to mean something far more negative
> > and
> > hurtful, if not insulting, than originally meant.
>
> on a quick dictionary/Google: "A small group of people
> with a disproportionate amount of public
> decision-making power" or "a group or class of persons
> enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic
> status"
>
> Yes. That's what I understood it to mean. If he meant
> something entirely different, he needed to write
> something entirely different, especially when this was
> a followup to describing the entire published HW/HQ
> corpus as "popularised" (and therefore not worthy of
> compatibility).
>
> > As for whether you want to associate with people on
> > that list,
> > I find it odd that most of them are also discussing
> > things
> > here, and if I had to guess, that would be somewhere
> > in the neighborhood of 300 plus people.
>
> 700-odd when the main Glorantha list was still alive.
> But only two of those seem to regard themselves as a
> self-appointed "elite" (dictionary definition), or to
> explicitly state that they see no point in
> compatibility with the Glorantha that the rest of us
> are gaming in: but still seem to imagine that the one
> they describe is in some way the "real" Glorantha. The
> other 698-odd are fine.
>
> > In the end, if you don't like the World of Glorantha
> > group, just keep on staying away from it as you have.
>
> Well, as the owner: is it about the Glorantha
> described in HQ/HW/RQ etc? Or about some strange and
> incompatible "deep" variant? If it's the former (and
> isn't going to degenerate again into misogynistic
> fantasy apparently designed to force women out of the
> game) then it may be worth taking another look: I
> might even like it again. But I tried that before :(
>
Jane,
I am very happy to use your first cited definition:
"A small group of people with a disproportionate
amount of public decision-making power"
Glorantha sells in roughly the 1000 market, meaning
an average book over time will sell about that amount.
This includes some Mongoose Gloranthan sales info that I
am only vaguely aware of, but it's Gloranthan material
so they count as "Gloranthans". The number of people who
even semi-actively post on the Heroquest-RPG AND the
World of Glorantha group are well under 75 people. Those
few who actively contribute to discussions DO have a
large influence on what gets written and published for
Glorantha. To me, less than 10% is a small group, and
if they can have a disproportionate amount of influence
on what gets discussed and eventually publisjhed, they are,
as far as I can see, "elite" by the Google dictionary
defintion you are using. That is also basically the
definition that Greg was using. I am not his apologist,
so you are welcome to get clarification from him.
I honestly don't believe "the two" you mention have
no concern with remaining "compatible" or "consistent"
with published Glorantha. On the contrary, they have
already expressed a number of concerns with new material
potentially being published that strays from canon. They
also didn't describe the entire published HW/HQ corpus
as being "popularised". They referred to a FEW SPECIFIC
subjects that Issaries published differently than what they
thought was how Glorantha should work because they thought
it would make the game a greater commercial success. Many
games do that to a certain extent. I don't need detailed
Torture rules, vivid Broo details, tiresome inequality, or
loads of info on child exploitation. Issaries didn't want
things that made the game less enjoyable or unpopular either.
That's the impression that I walked away with.
I've never seen the World of Glorantha group go too far overboard
when it comes to misogyny, sexism, etc. Yes, tasteless, hurtful,
insensitive, and innappropriate things get said there. I see
that as basically the way of the internet and most open
discussion forums. I would rather err on the side of freedom
of speech and personal accountability, than just slamming
down hard with loads of moderator intervention.
Lastly, A word from the owner:
The World of Glorantha group is all about discussing
Glorantha. Hopefully, in a constructive and civil manner.
It is about using what we know about Glorantha as a
springboard for creating more wonderful material, be it
an expansion, a revision, or a major overhaul.
As for me, I let the people decide how that all happens.
No more, no less.
Regards,
Rick Meints
Moon Design Publications