Simon Hibbs:
<<That's a matter for Robin to decide. I can only speak from experience - some people at the german con (a minority tank goodness) came to wholy unwarranted conclusions about the game. I talked to someone who was in the playtest and he said that he didn't like the game because it didn't have 'X' in it. In the real world, that's the sort of pre-judging and misconception that happens.>>
All of this is entirely plausible. My argument is that I don't see it as being any less likely of people taking part in a playtest than those who aren't. This is obviously where we disagree.
<<I have not said there should be no disclosure of information, nor have I said that there should be no discussion.>>
You said: "I think that widespread dissemination of information about the
game,
such as on this digest, would be counterproductive." Now, that's at least
implying there should be no disclosure on the Digest, which is what I was
referring to.
<<A ballance needs to be met, and I object to being characterised as a reactionary censor for saying so.>>
I apologise for any offence caused.
<<Are you saying that nobody can possibly come to an inaccurate and unjustified opinion about the game from an incomplete draft?>>
Nope. I'm just saying they're no more likely to do it in a playtest than outside of one.
<<That's what playtest groups and feedback forms are for.>>
I was referring to those not able to attend playtests.
<<The game designers have a right to privacy, a right to develop the game in their own way and on their own terms. I respect that, and I hope you do too.>>
Of course. However, by chosing to conduct playtests at a convention, Robin has to a certain extent, waived some of that privacy. Recent comments on this Digest by Shannon indicate that Issaries are not opposed to the kind of discussion I was advocating. Besides, now that Charles Domino has posted the available information, its a moot point...
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #647
Powered by hypermail