Separate lists (No) and sarcasm.

From: Ramos-Tavener, Doyle Wayne <st670_at_Jetson.UH.EDU>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:08:56 -0500 (CDT)


Peter Metcalfe:

>In a rather curious post titled 'Gee, Peter, afraid you might
>learn something?', Dolye posted the following attack:
>
>>Usual Peter-type sarcasm.
>
>Apparently my sin was to wonder if there was a demand for
>a glorantha-the-game roolz mailing list. Obviously Doyle
>has failed to consider the possibility that the post was
>*not* sarcastic in intent. I would have thought the possible
>topics I listed would have given him a helpful clue as to
>where my feelings lay on the matter.
>
>I suppose I should spell it out in simple language for
>Doyle's benefit, but I don't feel like talking like a
>three-year old at the moment. In any case, I shall
>pose the following question for Doyle to mull over:
>
> Why do we have a rq-rules mailing list seperate
> from the glorantha digest?
>
>- --Peter Metcalfe

I see that my cardinal sin was to not answer as honestly as I could. Instead I immediately sent off a gut level response to Peter's post.

Let me be clear.

In the FAQ for the mailing list the following points are made:

>B.What doesn't belong here?
>
> The Glorantha Digest is not intended for RuneQuest discussion
except in the setting of Glorantha. If you want to
> discuss RuneQuest rules, from variant rules to house rules to
rules questions (other than Glorantha-specific ones)
> then the best place to discuss them is the RuneQuest Rules
mailing list, also at this host.
>
> What about magic systems? Are they gloranthan or rules issues?
> Good question. I don't have any easy answers, only
suggestions. Look at your rules. Do they involve
> Runes and Rune-metals and all sorts of Glorantha-specific
information? Then they are Gloranthan. Do they
> involve a view of alternate realities based more on earth
tradition than on Gloranthan cosmology? Then they
> are not Gloranthan, and should go to the RuneQuest rules
mailing list. Do they involve a lot of numbers?
> Then they almost certainly should go to the RuneQuest Rules
mailing list.
>

The inference I draw from this is that if the ideas involved act to explore and illuminate Glorantha, they belong on this side of the list.

This is my own interpretation, but it seems to me that at least part of the reason the list split in the first place was the growing realization that RQ was inadequate to the needs of exploring and simulating Glorantha. Hence the flight from RQ type rules in that same period (Dunham's PenDragon Pass, Loren's Goonquest, etc).

That's fine by me. An examination of the first editions of RuneQuest make it clear that the object of the designers was to make a better AD&D, a better FRP system. Glorantha was clearly added as an example of superior world design. For a while (five years, six years?) that succeeded. But in the end, the focus shifted from RQ the rules construct to exploring Glorantha, at least on the part of the fans represented on this list (I'm sure someone will correct me if this is not a valid assumption).

The statement made a couple of weeks ago on this list by myself, "Runequest is dead. Long live Glorantha." is not to deter individuals from playing RQ, or even playing RQ in Glorantha, but rather a way of crowing about Chaosium's decision (and in retrospect, probably ill-considered. My apologies to anyone who still loves Runequest, and was offended by my statement). They would have hardly offered David Hall the chance to write a Gloranthan RPG unless they thought that RQ was moribund, and inadequate to the needs I discussed earlier.

One assumes that Chaosium does not create role playing games solely for the cash involved, and if this were the case, I somehow doubt David Hall and Greg Stafford themselves would have dinero as their only motivation (note that I don't discount profit as being one of their motivations, I merely discount it as the primary or single motivation). That being the case, I can only assume that the rules they will create will have as its primary purpose the exploration and simulation of Glorantha, and they will to the best of their ability attempt to achieve this as much as possible.

That, at least, is my assumption. And if it is true, then despite your lack of interest in such matters, such elements as rules discussions do belong on this list, because of the primary purpose of such rules will be the exploration of Glorantha on a personal scale.

Even Greg has publicly declared (at Origins '93) that the presence of RQ allowed him to 'focus' on an area he previously glossed over: the emotions, ideas and beliefs of the common human being in Glorantha. These do not involve, for the most part, obscure mythological points, but some of us do find such musings appealing. :) Would Pam Carlson's group in the northwest US be able to achieve some of the things they do so well without this innovation? How about RMMegacorp's LARPs? I find it doubtful indeed.

One has the hope that, GtG (or whatever it ends up being called) will explore this in better ways than RuneQuest ever did, starting with the place of the individual in the community. I don't know for sure if GtG will provide further innovations and revelations, but I am certainly hopeful that this will be the case.

And if we have to occasionally put up stuff we don't want to see, well, that's a reasonable approximation of life, Peter. Though I often see posts on the list that I do not wish to see, I don't feel the need to see them banished from the list.

To be blunt, I was responding in my earlier reply to the manner of your delivery, Peter, as well as your intent (the intent was responded with the single "No." at the end of the post). Sarcasm, and irony in general, is an honorable institution, sometimes taken to extremes by youngsters such as yourself (frankly, I assume you must be in your early 20's or younger, given your displayed behavior).

As an example, the constant "urm", "erm" and "irr" with which you casually dispense with (in the beginning of replies to posts you disagree with) are totally unnecessary in the rhetorical sense, not the mention the casual abuse you freely deliver in the bodies of your posts. This has the disturbing tendency to raise the 'hostility level' of this list, which is constantly commented on by newbies.

In south Texas, we have a few choice words for such individuals. We say that they are without manners, and devoid of self-respect, as they are unable to generate respect for anyone else.

I honestly hope you don't conduct your affairs in the real world the way you do on this list. Generally speaking I don't like to see abuse heaped on others. and I don't tolerate it at all when it is directed at myself.

Let be specific, young man. Don't ever take that tone with me again. :)

Doyle Ramos-Tavener


End of Glorantha Digest V3 #158


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail