Re: Greg on Digest

From: johnjmedway <jmedway_at_io.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:59:24 -0600 (CST)


>> Subject: Glorantha Digest V4 #166
>> From: <Dalfitch_at_aol.com>
>> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:47:40 -0500 (EST)
>> Subject: Re: Greg on Digest
>>
>> Why are we all so hurt by Greg Stafford's absence on the Digest? Think about
>> it, Glorantha is an open creation meant for use in campaigns. Thus,
>> Glorantha must remain open to individual interpretation. Greg Stafford, as
>> the creator of this wonderful "lozenge", would be the definitive word on all
>> questions. The Digest would then be little more than Q & A with Greg

I must agree. The Blue Room Mailing List (Tekumel's answer to this digest) is such a static affair, essentially popping off the Truth from Barker, as asked through his intermediary (the list maintainer). It's one level of indirection away from handing Barker a slip of paper with a question, and him writing down his answer. Dialog beyond that seems well out of the norm. As a result, I usually archive, without reading, those messages. I.O.W. Boring, non-creative, ...

And I can't help but wonder how much time the traffic on this digest would suck out of Greg's time to write. Admittedly, if he's going to continue to write the esoterica he has been, most folks would rather him here so we can ask the questions we want answered.

(And not that all of what I am calling "esoterica" is bad. It's game utility and attractiveness to newcomers is near zero, though, and newcomers are what this crowd needs.)


End of Glorantha Digest V4 #169


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

Powered by hypermail