<< >Is that a fair summary of where we differ?
Yes it is. >>
Oh dear... I have to say I'd been hoping that Nick's excellent summary would prompt a response along the lines of 'not quite' and actually move the discussion on to somewhere a bit more productive as we narrowed down the areas of disagreement and maybe even (gasp!) reach a consensus. I have to say, I can't think of any reason at all to disagree with any of Nick's own opinions as summarised here; they seem reasonable, interesting and in no way contradicting previous material AFAICS. Sadly, if nothing which has been said so far convinces Martin, I, for one, have run out of arguments.
Let's just hope that the lack of detailed mythico-philosophical information in SGU will cover up this rather dull model so we aren't yet forced to have non-canonical campaigns (which I'd do in a flash if I had to, but still, all things considered, that I'd rather not...). One question though: in what way (if any) does Martin's model provide for any interesting gaming possibilities that the other *doesn't*? I can see some interesting possibilities are equally available in both models, and some that are only possible if Nick et al. correct, but examples of the third category have so far eluded me. Perhaps if we had some illustrations it might serve to move the debate forward?
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #612
Powered by hypermail