Hey Martin,
I appreciate your most recent comments on the digest, and just wanted to tie up loose ends off digest out of respect for David's (justifiable) objection. I regret the nasty tone that this discussion has degenerated to. Honestly, despite my objection to your desire to remove the "platform shoes" of Glorantha's past (is Nochet *really* so bad?) it would be a much nastier blow to Glorantha if folks like yourself withdrew and wrote nothing at all. I will take what I can get, and be happy for it! :)
> The really odd thing is that, Nick aside, John Hughes' original post on the
> 4 levels didn't generate such hostility.
This is (as you somewhat sarcastically speculated) because John's "levels" describe a way of looking at fantasy worlds, and don't imply a value judgment. Nobody became upset until they believed you were saying that they are inferior gamers because they *prefer* to play on a "lower" level. It was the statement that better gamers aspire to level 3 that set off the powder keg.
It was brewing before that, though. There were several statements in previous posts that ridiculed the opposing point of view (which is what pulled me in from my normal lurker status). For example:
> I could continue to heap invective and ridicule on the embarrassing and
> ridiculous relics of the wargaming past, relics which haunt the present
> like platform shoes and naugahyde jackets in the bottom of the trunk, but
> my point is made and the arguments against it, if I may say so, smack of
> inertia and a counterproductive nostalgia.
>
I will admit that this hurt partially because it is true. Nostalgia will not help Glorantha sell to much needed new
players. It might not hurt either, but it certainly won't help. On the other hand, I was a first time player once.
Glorantha seemed quaint and interesting. Sometimes silly, sometimes serious. There was an aspect of Glorantha for whatever
mood I and my players were in. This is fortunate, since it allows the game to appeal to a wide range of tastes. No other
game world we have tried has been able to do this. Some of my players would really rather be playing in Harn. Others would
rather die than play there. Glorantha, just as it is, appeals to both.
On to other topics...
> 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.
I agree, although "hobby" is probably more accurate than "game" for the research/writing. Either way, it is entertainment. As for the latter statement - OUCH! OK, you got me there. :) Still, I have players that are firmly in "level 2" that are expert at what they are doing. Others are better at "level 3" style play. Neither does well in the others arena. This is what leads me to believe that they are both equally valid modes of play.
> 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?
Yes - but what makes a better story? At the end of the day, the background material that fits the mode of play that you are currently in is better, and that which does not, isn't. That by no means suggests that only one type of background should be created! Therefore, I fall into the "explain it" camp. Keep the Nochets and Swenstowns, and come up with a parallel "High Game" version for those who want to dig deeper.
Anyway, thanks for keeping your head (and temper). It can't have been easy.
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hey Martin,
<p>I appreciate your most recent comments on the digest, and just wanted
to tie up loose ends off digest out of respect for David's (justifiable)
objection. I regret the nasty tone that this discussion has degenerated
to. Honestly, despite my objection to your desire to remove the "platform
shoes" of Glorantha's past (is Nochet *really* so bad?) it would be a much
nastier blow to Glorantha if folks like yourself withdrew and wrote nothing
at all. I will take what I can get, and be happy for it! :)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The really odd thing is that, Nick aside, John Hughes'
original post on the
<br>4 levels didn't generate such hostility.</blockquote>
This is (as you somewhat sarcastically speculated) because John's "levels"
describe a way of looking at fantasy worlds, and don't imply a value judgment.
Nobody became upset until they believed you were saying that they are inferior
gamers because they *prefer* to play on a "lower" level. It was the
statement that better gamers aspire to level 3 that set off the powder
keg.
<p>It was brewing before that, though. There were several statements
in previous posts that ridiculed the opposing point of view (which is what
pulled me in from my normal lurker status). For example:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>I could continue to heap invective and ridicule on the embarrassing and
ridiculous relics of the wargaming past, relics which haunt the present
like platform shoes and naugahyde jackets in the bottom of the trunk, but
my point is made and the arguments against it, if I may say so, smack of
inertia and a counterproductive nostalgia.</pre>
</blockquote>
I will admit that this hurt partially because it is true. Nostalgia
will not help Glorantha sell to much needed new players. It might
not hurt either, but it certainly won't help. On the other hand,
I was a first time player once. Glorantha seemed quaint and interesting.
Sometimes silly, sometimes serious. There was an aspect of Glorantha
for whatever mood I and my players were in. This is fortunate, since
it allows the game to appeal to a wide range of tastes. No other
game world we have tried has been able to do this. Some of my players
would really rather be playing in Harn. Others would rather die than
play there. Glorantha, just as it is, appeals to both.
<p>On to other topics...
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Well, Glorantha is bigger than just gaming, unless
you include research and
<br>background writing as gaming of a sort. I don't think they're
different
<br>types of beverages altogether, since they frequently overlap and a
game can
<br>take place on more than one level at a time and through time.</blockquote>
I agree, although "hobby" is probably more accurate than "game" for the
research/writing. Either way, it is entertainment. As for the
latter statement - OUCH! OK, you got me there. :) Still, I
have players that are firmly in "level 2" that are expert at what they
are doing. Others are better at "level 3" style play. Neither
does well in the others arena. This is what leads me to believe that
they are both equally valid modes of play.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The background doesn't exist for its own sake, it
exists
<br>to make the story more interesting.
<p>Yes, and wouldn't a better background make a better story?</blockquote>
Yes - but what makes a better story? At the end of the day, the background
material that fits the mode of play that you are currently in is better,
and that which does not, isn't. That by no means suggests that only
one type of background should be created! Therefore, I fall into
the "explain it" camp. Keep the Nochets and Swenstowns, and come
up with a parallel "High Game" version for those who want to dig deeper.
<p>Anyway, thanks for keeping your head (and temper). It can't have
been easy.
<p>-Paul McDonald</html>
Powered by hypermail