Alex relies to Richard:
>richc confesses, of the board-games list:
>> I'd be much more comfortable recommending it as a
>> resource for those of us who like pushing lead around
>> as the signal-to-noise-ratio is much better _from a
>> wargamer's point of view._
ALex:
>Beats me how, since the wargame (by your own, earlier, and quite
>specific definition) content would be precisely zero; you emphatic
>qualification aside, it's tempting to read just a wee bit of
>Judgementalism into characterisations like 'signal-to-noise', and
>comments about Certain Threads. Is there a union rule that makes
>it impossible to be a mini-wargamer and interested in mythology,
>as well as stats, or something?
It's probably not my place to reply, but I think Alex has misread the
emphasis of what Richard said.
I suggested to Richard off-list that the board-games list might be a more
usefull signpost for mainstream wargamers (now there's a thought) who may
be interested in trying out a Gloranthan battle or two. My reasons were,
firstly there is a reasonable degree of overlap in interest between the
boardgames and miniture gloranthan wargames, a larger overlap IMHO than
there would be between the GD and the general minigamer. Secondly the much
slower pace of the boardgames list would mean that the thread generated by
any question is less diluted by other threads which may be obscure and
irrelevant *to the mainstream wargamer*.
Richard's 'signal-to-noise' analogy is a good summary of the reasons I gave for my suggestion. But in Richards post he underlined the disclaimer " _from a wargamer's point of view._". I don't see any judgements being made here. Merely the point that beauty is in the ear of the behearer, and to a non-gloranthan wargamer who wishes to dabble in a gloranthan based wargame even the most beautiful symphony on some irrelevent (from their POV) Gloranthan detail will just sound like so much noise.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #404
Powered by hypermail