Re: Blue Pill Time

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_WIE7PeEcJn5TW638Kd4jj2HZPqULbnrqtW2AdlY6rr9QzyLGAUvcFQxHBzJrwpS06HRa>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:00:16 -0000


> >and everything to do with intellectual
> > property issues.
>
> Which were not mentioned at the time of setup: only
> "hey, new idea, let's have a list that just discusses
> Glorantha!" Huh? We had one. The only difference given
> was "and this is the only one Greg's on". Quite
> possibly what was said bore no resemblance to the
> truth: but in that case, why say it?

The IP issues are not what the list is about, but they were the prime mover that made it very sensible to create a new list. And the new list definitely has more activity than either of the old lists.

> > First, Greg (and
> > myself, and Mark Galeotti, and many of the other
> > folk who write with
> > Greg) do this largely for artistic and creative
> > reasons - the small
> > amounts of money involved are hardly the motivation
> > for anything other than a commissioned work.
>
> Makes sense. But he claims to be a professional. His
> claim, not mine. If he makes the claim, he should live
> up to it. If he's claiming to be a professional, but
> not making money out of it, that just means he's an
> incompetent professional.

No, the guys at Mongoose are professionals. Robin is a professional.  Greg's Glorantha stuff has long been largely for his own creative entertainment. Which is why he writes stuff he is entertained by, and not stuff that might have a bigger market.

> > Second, the Glorantha described in "gaming
> > supplements" is always going to be fundamentally
> MGF.
>
> Of course. That's what it's for.

Which is different from the creative mythology stuff - mythology doesn't necessarily have MGF as a driving principle.

> They're SELLING it. Not saying "here, take it if you
> fancy it, hope it's of interest/use." There is this
> claim to be professionals. Even the idea that Greg
> should check the work of others for "correctness",
> when them checking his work would be a damn sight more
> use. If it's an amateur production, done for free,
> then yes, some slips may happen and be excused (though
> in fact most amateurs are pretty careful). But if I
> pay for a bit of software, I expect it to work. If I
> pay for a car, I expect it to work. If I pay for an
> RPG supplement, I expect that to work, too. And random
> incompatibility because someone was feeling artistic
> means it does not work. "Creative" is very nice when
> you're doing something for yourself, but when you're
> being paid for it, doing what you want to do instead
> of what's required is not one of the options on the
> menu. If you think it is, please tell my boss, and
> I'll spend my time in work writing games, not finance
> modules.

This isn't software, this is creative literature. What the fuck is "correctness" supposed to mean? Complaining about spelling errors is legitimate (although Greg does use several editors for spelling and grammar - as do I) but complaining about "correctness" in fictional literature is just weird. Greg's stories (and for that matter mine or anyone else's) are just that - stories. And for that matter, I'm selling copies of the Orlmarthingsaga at Tentacles (and eventually through Moon Design), with all profits to go to Tentacles or for an elite beerdrinking slush fund. Guess what - I don't care if Orlmarthingsaga works with anyone's campaign! Maybe people will buy it, maybe people won't. I (and David Dunham and Neil Robinson and Greg Stafford and many others) simply enjoyed playing in the game and writing up the narrative.

Jeff            

Powered by hypermail