>Danny:
Reading my post back again I feel I should have put in reasons why I said what I did.
>
>Maybe. However, you'll note that copping out often has its advantages. By
>coping out on the RE debate I could have avoided being flamed. By copping
>out and not bringing it up at all I guess a lot of hurt feelings on all
sides
>could have been avoided. However, that would be copping out. Not my cuppa
>tea.
Ah, but I wasn't talking about you, hence why I said on Greg's part. I think you've been very brave to post what you have, and although I do have a lot of sympathy and empathy for MOB, Nick et al, I don't agree with them 100%.
>>As for Greg's letter I can only say the following:
>>>Greg is in favour of serious ambiguity regarding the way the Emperor
works
>
>>Cop out on Greg's part.
Anyway, the reason I think it's a cop out is because it smacks of laziness. Saying it's ambiguous sounds like well I don't really know, but I'll listen to various ideas and say they're all correct.
>
>>>He said there are groups who believe they can place an Emperor on the
throne
>>>through one of their number taking the mantle AND through finding the
soul
>>>of the one true Emperor. Greg explicitly stated that neither is right
nor
>are
>>>they wrong.
>
>>Cop out on Greg's part.
The reason I think this is a cop out goes back to The Turner Prize (of all things). I had a debate with an artist that went roughly along these lines. What is the meaning behind your painting? My painting means whatever you want it to mean, he replied. Which said to me that his work had no intrinsic meaning itself, even for him, it only had a meaning or content when someone applied their interpretation/polemic/hyperbole/spin to it. You can't say that's not right, but it's not wrong either as we get into the realms of subjectivism again. Once more, it looks like a 'I haven't decided if there's a correct way at the moment, so I'll say all versions are correct, but at the same time all versions are wrong'. Kinda galling. Now it would be a completely different matter to say that for group A they know and truly believe that process X is correct as opposed to process Y, whilst group B know and truly believe that process Y is correct as opposed to process X. In that way you can have subjective truths for each group, with the players and GM alike knowing that they're subjective truths, rather than oh I assumed idea F was the case, but in later publications it's turned out that idea F was the Dara Happan standpoint only and that although it's idea F in the heartlands, in the provinces it's actually idea G. (I don't know how clear that is, so I hope you can understand what I mean).
On a side note I cannot believe that you truly adhere to the precept of if it's not broken, break it anyway to see if you can create something better. Would you seriously divorce your wife, with whom you were happily married, just to see if you could create a better life?
Note for MOB
Cricket, Rugby, Golf,
Motor Racing, Yachting, Underwater Nude Basketweaving, and other
ZZZZ-inducing TV sports).
You find underwater nude basketweaving ZZZZ inducing? I'm told its one of the all time great sports in Juboratanga (that and thugby). Whatever happened to Carlton?
However, let me just
say I think your idea of creating an instant 60 year campaign by printing
off a KoDP Long-Game saga is brilliant!
Praise from MOB? You must have been drinking, sire ;-)
Danny
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #587
Powered by hypermail