> There does seem to be a fair category of "semi-
> official" publications that have had Issaries, Inc
> input (some articles YBOT, Unspoken Word and
> so on).
Unless Issaries say on the article that it's "official," though, it ain't. ("Unspoken Word" gets exceptionally tedious with its cringing grovels in article headers: can't we be trusted to assume that nothing is official without an explicit Issaries imprimatur? This looks extremely anal to me).
> People [can be] fairly confident that a lot of the
> semi-official stuff will continue to be useful.
I *completely* agree. Indeed, I couldn't agree more.
BUT, just because an article is [published, useful, fun, excellent, colourful, compatible with HW, written by HW authors, good Gloranthan stuff, etc. -- delete as applicable] does not mean it's "official".
And this is what the poster I replied to was asking about: "Is Enclosure 'official'?" ("No.").
> In my experience fitting material into a broadly
> coherent campaign is tricky, regardless of whether
> it is official or not.
I quite agree. To some extent, Issaries publications are trying to hit a moving target, given that we're already playing Gloranthan games for decades and now they're trying to catch-up with useful supplementary material.
(Alternative view: to stay "official," all of us would have to try to hit a moving target, given Issaries' publication schedule, changing plans and concepts, revised works- -progress, etc. But that's too depressing to consider.)
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail