This digest is what all of its contributors make it. I always get a little disheartened whenever someone posts their farewell address and it mostly contains the message that this digest is too: esoteric, in-jokey, nasty, elitist, snobbish, cliquey, pretentious, etc.
While all of those adjectives have fit this group during the many years of this digest's existence, I also feel that none of the digest's problems are unfixable. Most of the digest contributors will respond both quickly and positively to CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.
TO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE DIGEST:
- ----------------------------------------------------------Please, make a friendly list of your concerns and suggest how they can be addressed. All of us want this digest to thrive. Chiming in with a "you guys are too XXXXXXXX, so I'm out of here" doesn't really accomplish much. While I admire Gian Gero for listing his grievances, I wish he (and many others) would have spent a little more time trying to get the digest to work instead of just getting mad and leaving.
On the other side of the equation are all of those on the digest who almost seem to revel in posting with barbed responses to innocent questions or who thoroughly enjoy feeling wronged, proceed top get upset, and then fill the digest with venomous retaliatory flame-wars. I have grown tired of responses in the vein of "since you don't get my point and have insulted me, I'm going to insult you back".
Let's get on with Glorantha...
A Big Wave sinks the cradle scenario...
The idea that a single PC action, like having the cradle float
over the Lunar magical chain early in the cradle scenario, would ruin
the whole adventure strikes me as GM laziness more than a flaw in the
writing of the epic scenario. PC's can often find ways to circumvent
strictly written scenario details, but that doesn't mean that the GM
should just roll over and play dead. If I were the GM in that campaign,
I would have had the Lunars try something else soon afterward. Have the
Lunars drop in a few ultra-powerful Heroquest types to do something else
that affects the cradle. I'm not saying that the PC's shouldn't
be rewarded for clever thinking, but that doesn't mean the scenario
should crumble either. To put it into the simplest example I can think
of: If there are 5 enemies in a room and the PC's kill them without even
breaking into a sweat, and I saw that the next encounter had 5 more
similar enemies, I would be tempted to bump up the enemies' strength
and/or numbers. GMs have to be able to adapt scenarios (within limits).
Powered by hypermail