Hrm. That's not my perception, but I suppose I can see how certain developments make it look more thus than it may have been in earlier times. AFAIK, Issaries have made no declaration about any change in role, purpose, or material policy about the list since they (or some gestalt of their fellow Chaosium-fragments) took over hosting chores, and I hope if they had such in mind they'd do so clearly and explicitly. So personally, I suspect them of harbouring of no motivation other than wishing to encourage and support the Digest as a 'resource', lest it wither on the wine through lack of time or resources. The mere fact of an impending RPG should hardly be a dampening factor on anyone, however 'unOfficial', surely!
If this Digest really were to become just a temple to Official Orthodoxy, I'd suggest that there's surely always scope for an _un_-official, to be manned by the rebels on the hillside -- but I won't, since I don't think it's about to happen, and worse that it sounds as if that'd be a party to which I wouldn't be invited, given the following:
> Many digesters (myself included) are finding it increasingly less
> attractive to take part in discussions with an official expert
> (designated by Issaries), as his words (where have our women gone?)
> carry the weight of authority.
Jeepers! I suppose that's a real concern, though I can hardly recall an Expert explictly invoking their infallible powers as Greg's Vicars on Earth, so as a rule I'd (as fan and digest reader) tend to regard their statements as being indicative, rather than authorative in any strong sense. Though where an Expert is also an Author, and is expressing not just what's his (massively well-informed, of course...) opinion, but also on its way to press in the next ten minutes, I'll grant you we're talking 'strongly indicative'. But extreme solutions aside, I don't see what's to be done about that. At any rate, as a natural contrarian, the more people's Authorativeness (Expertly or otherwise) is touted in midargument, the more I wonder what the big hole in their argument they're so anxious to lightly pebble-dash over... (If they're actually involved in an argument; obviously some amount of Original Creation, cum fiat, is going to be involved, which in the final analysis we, as consumer can decide to like, lump, or bin.)
At any rate, I'd not like to think that in any sense 'dissent' is in some manner being quashed by the Expert process. If, for example, I were to declare some nonsense about Kralorela, swear on a stack of King of Sartar's that it's Official, and that a supplement backing me up on this was about to hit the shops, then I don't see why this would preclude discussion of a contrary position, especially if it were a popular or a 'Generally Accepted' one. The list doesn't do anything to discourage that, and AFAIK the expert system doesn't, either. Granted you might think that it was futile to discuss soemthing under such conditions, but not only does that sound like an extreme set of circumstances, given Digest futility _passim_, I wonder if it'd make much difference.
> It was a natural consequence of the rebirth of Glorantha as a game world,
> but a bittersweet one for long time gloranthaphiles. Now we will know who
> was right about the Kitori, but at the same time, it will be shrinking the
> scope for fan production, or that cool idea proposed five years ago will
> go straight through the window (Red Army Blues).
The scope of Glorantha is rather fractal, if you ask me: I think (and I hope) that 'settling' top-level bunfights about the Kitori will just open up more scope for _more_ real scope for developing them, in a more rounded and John-Hughes-Level-Three sense. I don't personally give a monkey's who was 'right' about them, if knowing the facts in question advances discussion of the topic beyond the all-too- familiar level of tis-tisn't. Though in practice I'm sure it merely moves it to a different level of tis-tisn't, but hopefully in the space in between, some room was created to make actually gaming there more possible, more fully rounded, and more accessible. (Consistency is not the object of this exercise as I understand it, but in moderation may perhaps be one of the means.)
> One thing I am missing in the "new" Glorantha is the slapstick comedy
> that had been with it since the beginning, and which is being abandoned
> following the "Mythical Correctness" which Greg is following now.
The leading contenders in Glorantha Source Slapstick are surely the Tales crowd, and I hope that they all continue to do so in one form or another (other than in Tales itself, very sadly). Whether they're to be born-again preachers of New Official Glorantha, or sly subversives wedging their observations into the Freudian slips of the unconscious of same, I know not -- I just hope they find some such role to their collective and assorted likings. At any rate, give the amount of tongue-in-cheek material already around, surely the Official Glorantha can hardly be all that dry and poe-faced, coming as it does almost pre-lampooned? Given the Gloranfans' astonishing track-record in reconciling 5 mutually contradictory things before breakfast, I'm not even all that worried about the amount of RetConning that will doubtless be involved, at least to the unIlluminated eye...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail