Re : Roleplaying groups

From: George W. Harris <gharris_at_mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:46:55 -0500

[this certainly isn't meant to pick on Simon, and I'm aware that Mikko made the same distinction, but still I feel this should be pointed out as long as we're being even-handed in our evaluation of role-playing preferences...]

>From: simon_hibbs_at_lycosmail.com
>
>Mikko Rintasaari
>
>>And after this rather sensible definition a great number of people rushed
>>to point their noses high into the air and demand and apology for this
>>such oppressive elitist comments.
>
>And quite rightly too. Although I'd have thought if anyone was sticking
>their noses high into the air, it is those people who talk about 'better
>roleplaying groups', implying that any groups who don't play the way
>they do are bad roleplaying groups.

        This is true, but...

>>I want to explore new ways of thinking, ethics and metaphysics,
>>_as_well_as_ have fun.
>
>So do I, but that doesn't mean I can't have a fantastic time playing an
>MGF scenario at a convention.

        ...this, in turn, by drawing a distinction between the two seems to imply that those groups who think that new ways of thinking, ethics and metaphysics *are* the essence of MGF are in some way bad roleplaying groups. Which is simplistic, divisive and abusive.

• -- Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

George W. Harris                        gharris_at_mindspring.com

------------------------------

End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #474

---