Problems with the list?

From: peter metcalfe <>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:23:03 +1300 (NZDT)


>>>the only published overview of the world has been declared invalid.

Me>> Since when did this happen? Put up or shut up.
> I'm saying that the "Monomyth" is the only published (and I mean
>commercially, not in fanzines) overview, and it has pretty darn much been
>declared to be invalid repeatedly.

No, the Monomyth isn't the 'only published overview', the Orlanthi myth in KoS differs markedly from it in some respects. And you've evaded the question of _who_ declared it invalid and _when_. Once again put up or shut up.  

>The rpg stuff up to RQ II was based on its
>basic (if not total) validity, while now if one brings up something from the
>Monomyth or an RQ II supplement it is likely to be refuted by something in the
>_Glorious Reascent of Yelm_ or _The Fortunate Accession_ or something in
>_Tales_ or whatever since after all the Dara Happens have umpty zillion years
>of written history while the Orlanthis figure on 1600 years of Time and the
>God Learners work on an Orlanthi time line for some reason.

And guess what? The modern stuff agrees with much of the basic stuff. Yes, Virgil, there *is* an Orlanth!

> Yeah, yeah I know about that and it's cool and all that but a goodly
>portion of it is invalidated God Learnerish Orlanthi Perspective Monomythical
>stuff and is thus not necessarily authoritative now, is it?

It is completely and utterly valid for the people in the Orlanthi region and to some extents, the Malkioni, which is at least 20 million gloranthans. So what is the problem?

[Xmas stocking list deleted - I'm no Santa Claus]

Peter Maranci:

> Second: some of the responses to recent complaints about the state
>of the Digest and RQ are perfect examples of how to drive away players.
>Flaming people for saying that they feel that the fun has been taken out
>of Glorantha is not helpful, and will not bring in new converts.

I don't flame them for saying that they feel the fun has gone out of glorantha but for saying things that are untrue (like 'Greg the Gloranthanoberstfuerher has verboeten all RQ3 projects merely because they differed one iota from his ideal!'). I presume you can appreciate why.

> What has happened? We used to see NPCs, magic items, plot hooks,
>scenarios, strange creatures, and other fun game-useful stuff on the
>Digest. Over the years there's been less and less of that.

Mainly because the Web is a much better place for the game useful stuff. I can go to Kim Englund's Web Page and find out where to start looking if I wanted information on the Telmori or the Ralian Orlanthi or even the Safelstrans. Whereas if the stuff were posted on the digest, the only way most people would find them would be on the archives which aren't as user-friendly to access. I'm suprised that of all people, that you need this explained to you. After all, why *do* you put _your_ scenarios on a webpage and not post them to the digest?

>True, no one is
>stopping newcomers from asking questions -- but if they do what's right
>and lurk a bit before posting, they're virtually certain to run like hell.

But since newcomers _are_ posting (one or two just posted within the last ten digests) and _not_ 'running like hell', surely your proposition is total bollocks, no? And what's more, flaming newbies for asking simple questions is virtually unknown on this digest. In many cases, the scholars you so criticize for scaring people off have gone out of their way to help these newcomers.

Powered by hypermail