Me:
> It's probably not my place to reply, but I think Alex has misread the
> emphasis of what Richard said.
Alex
Never mind the emphasis; I see nothing in your take of Richard's
post to suggest I was mistaken about the content.
Me
> 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.
Alex:
And if a Napoleanic wargamer complained about the 'noise' on a Napoleanic
gaming list where people were, For Some Bizarre Reason, discussing the
Napoleanic background, you'd feel the same way?
Anyway, in your analogy above you specify a "Napoleonic wargamer" on a Napoleonic list. What I was talking about was something different, to wit a primarily *non-Gloranthan* wargammer interested in a Gloranthan diversion. I thought this was clearly who Richard's article was to be aimed at from his messages too.
In this case a RW wargamer wanting to run a battle in the DP area (say) might not be so interested in many other digest topics eg fertility, contraception and sexual behaviour; Eastern Isles; Hero Wars mechanics; Praxian pronunciations. This is not to belittle the interest that these themes would hold for someone primarily interested in Glorantha. (And I personally find some of those themes very interesting, lest I be thought to be judging their worth).
Also GD is not purely a Gloranth *gaming* list (unlike the Napoleonic list in your analogy above) and its' interests are pretty diverse (which is a good thing).
So to answer your above question "no". On the other hand if someone who was not primarily a Napoleonic Wargamer wanted to try out a quick game in that setting I'd sooner refer them to a Napoloenic gaming list than I would to a list on general European History (say).
Anyway, I suspect this discussion is probably just noise to most on the GD. So apologies for meandering so far off-topic everyone.
Powered by hypermail