So many things to respond to

From: Martin Crim <MCrim_at_erols.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:53:06 -0500


Brian Tickler <tickler_at_netcom.com> wrote:
>Subject: 4 levels of Gloranthan roleplaying
>
>Numbers 3 and 4 could as easily be replaced by:
>
>3. It's just a game world, my friend. Pretension provides false rewards.
>4. Get a social life. You're dangerously introverted. Stay away from my
>neighborhood. :)

Cute smiley notwithstanding, this is a personal slap. As ad hominem attacks generally mean that you have no substantive argument to make, I suggest you lose.

The really odd thing is that, Nick aside, John Hughes' original post on the 4 levels didn't generate such hostility. Now apparently it does, perhaps because it is coupled with the impression that I am elitistically lobbying for taking away people's beloved "Christian's Bay" (no, that wasn't the one that is being defended--was it Nochet? no. Was it Dr. Seuss's Koromondol?  no. Darn, which was it...?)

I'm suggesting ways to improve the game. The hostile reaction I'm getting is irrational, as some of the other posts against me clearly show. See below.

Brian also opines:
>Changing any city/town/location names now would be foolish in the extreme.
>Hero Wars only stands a snowball's chance as it is...invalidating and
>confusing all the new material by making it out of whack with everything
>already published would be corporate suicide.

It's a tough business, no doubt. I wonder if Glorantha has much to do with them making money, tho' I'm sure they make some. I'll leave the business plans to others, however. My interest is in improving Glorantha, and in showing the benefits of those improvements to as many people as possible. I do that mainly by adding to the existing supply of information, but I don't feel that existing material is off-limits for discussion. If what I write is not to your tastes, ignore it.

Peter Metcalfe stoops to a level I won't go to:
>and those whingers who bitch about how this partial translation
>just _ruins_ glorantha for them ***
>just to appease the linguistically anal^H^H^H^Hcorrect
>brigade?

Again, personal attacks are unpersuasive.

Nick has a very sensible view:
>I agree completely. This is the kind of argument Tolkien used in presenting
>the names from "Lord of the Rings" not as authentically-reconstructed
>Westron (or whatever) but in appropriate English-resonant equivalents.

I rather like that idea of "English-resonant equivalents," especially since it was delivered without j'accuses, rants, personal insults, or the like. As I've said before, I don't prefer to play in Tekumel (or, I'll say now, with gamers who insist it's Tay-ku-mel insteadof Tek-you-mel). Actually, since I don't have a game group right now, I'd take a Tekumel game over none at all; but I'd prefer to play in Glorantha.

Now, would anyone care to come up with as sensible an explanation for problems such as Nochet, Koromondol, etc., and help me come up with more exciting names for Barbarian Town, etc.?

>I'll drift into Tolkien again, rather than risk annoying Martin Crim by
>joining him in attempting to distort John Hughes' "four levels" analytical
>construct into an elitist paradigm for self-selecting gamers.

Well, almost without personal attacks. He's trying, folks, give him credit. Years ago, you couldn't say boo without a lengthy diatribe on how Greg's early manuscripts say aha.

Kevin P. McDonald writes:
>Subject: Re: 4 levels; elitism
>After thinking it over, I think the flaw in your argument is equating the
levels of Gloranthan "reality" with levels of
>gamer sophistication. For gamers, these aren't "levels" so much as styles
of play. Your analogy of the beer expert is
>weak, because these "levels" of play are more like different beverages
altogether. One doesn't compare beer to wine
>(apples to oranges?).

Well, Glorantha is bigger than just gaming, unless you include research and background writing as gaming of a sort. I don't think they're different types of beverages altogether, since they frequently overlap and a game can take place on more than one level at a time and through time.

>This doesn't make them bad players, or even unsophisticated ones. They
just know what they like - playing out an
>amusing story. The background doesn't exist for its own sake, it exists
to make the story >more interesting.

Yes, and wouldn't a better background make a better story?

And then we have:
>From: bjm10_at_cornell.edu
>Subject: Don't go there, girlfriend.
>
>> Of course you move between levels. Level 3 is the goal, however; doesn't
>
>Prove that "Level 3 is the goal." Go ahead, I challenge you to do so.
>You will, of course fail. Indeed, I BOAST of your failure and throw it
>in your face!

Is this humor?

>When backed to the wall while supporting an untenable position, retaliate
>with a non-sequitor. It's a cheap debating tactic, without merit.

What *are* you talking about.

>*** From what instituted did
>you obtain your PhD in those fields. The fact that you have a vested
>MONETARY interest in the propagation of as much Gloranthan detail as
>possible should render the position you have taken somewhat suspect in
>the mind of any discerning audience. ***
>I challenge, indeed I DENY the very premise that there are "levels" to
>roleplaying that can be arranged in a hierarchical premise from worst to
>best. ***
>I put forth a formal challenge to anyone who disagrees with me to
>RIGOROUSLY DEMONSTRATE that I am in error. I want to see hard evidence,
>not mere statements of personal taste. I want hard evidence for any and
>all absolutes claimed.
>
>Finally, j'accuse!
>
>I accuse those who do maintain that such standards exist are either lying
>or unable to distinguish between true universals and mere personal taste
>and that the latter compound their error by irrationally sticking to
>their guns in the face of all facts contrary.
>
>My accusation is made.

This is just bizarre. Please stay away from me. Do not email me personally; I will delete the messages unread.

I'm perfectly happy to have discussions with people who remain hinged; but when the discussion goes over to something approaching shouted defiance and a demand for the impossible (or else you will be vindicated in you own mind) then the conversation is over.

Alex observes:
>Martin Crim continues to have problems with his parts of speech:
>> Of course you move between levels. Level 3 is the goal, however; doesn't
>> mean you can't hit 1 and 2 also.
>
>Not _the_ goal, but _a_ goal, and (apparently) _your_ goal.

OK, a goal. You meant to say that Martin has trouble with his particles.

> [much indecipherable verbiage deleted] piss on other people's games from
a great height
>for seeming no reason at all other than the sheer 'joy' of doing so.

I don't criticize anyone's games. I want to provide resources so people can move their games to places they'll find interesting. If people choose not to do so, for reasons they find sufficient, fine; I, unlike others, don't feel the need to personally put down someone because of their esthetic decisions. OTOH, I don't feel threatened by other people making of Glorantha something they enjoy.

Oliver Bernuetz asks:
>1) What colour is a troll's skin?

"The mistress race's skin is velvety black, sometimes showing dark grey spots or patches. Dark trolls have a dark to light gray skin. Dark troll skin often shows a mottling in a different shade of gray, such as orange-gray, or blue-gray. Great trolls' skin is colored similarly to that of dark trolls, while trollkin hide varies tremendously, though it is generally much lighter than an adult dark troll's. Sea trolls are blue-black dorsally, lighter blue underneath; and cave trolls tend towards a bleached green or gray washed over a dull black base." - --From "More on Trolls," by Sandy Petersen, in the RQ Companion, p. 46.

>2) Why does Orlanth have a thief's aspect?

Do you want a game answer, a social answer, or a mythic answer? :)

End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #231


Powered by hypermail