Mobs post

From: Svechin_at_cs.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:20:50 EDT


Me:
>Answer me this, if you will. In what article, precisely, done by the RMM is
>there a detailed description of the Imperial succesion?

>Wrong question. I said "already widely-understood, resonant and
>entertaining **GA** version", not some definitive "published version".

Generally accepted, when in fact the details have only been discussed in this debate to any depth? It seems to me that if it is generally accepted (by the 10% of digesters that post on the subject), then that is a new thing. In addition, I really don't think that one can say "generally" unless the vast majority of players in Glorantha accept it too. If there is no product for them to read and understand, then how can they accept it generally or otherwise? How can it even be debated?

>But, if there wasn't an existing GA view to challenge your brand new
>surprise interpretation, we (me, Nick, Mr Gidlow, David, David, David,
>Alex, Trotsky, Loren, Neil, Guy, Keith, John, Andre etc.)

All of 10 people. I have upwards of 10 players in my Gloranthan gaming group. Those ten players read Gloranthan stuff and have read Tales etc. As far as they are concerned, non of these views are generally accepted, they're just opinions of a group of people with a vested interested. Just like me, and just like Greg.

Me:
>I find this GA approach irritating when there is plainly a whole wad of
>_opinion_ and very little indeed in print to be GA in the first place!

MOB
>Come on Martin, you're begging the question again! It's obvious that a
>concept can be "generally accepted" without every detail having to be
>spelled out, chapter and verse, black and white, "in print".

No it can't. Your Sun County is GA because it was printed and has been read by the majority (not all by any means) of people in the G hobby. I wouldn't argue that Sun County is generally accepted. I would argue that Enclosure isn't, as there were only a few hundred copies and the majority of people who game in Glorantha won't have it or even had access to it..

>The "whole wad" of what you dismiss as "opinion" derives from a variety of
>sources, including works by Greg, RMM stuff, other "fan" (spit)

Dunno why you put the "spit" in. It implies I'm against fan stuff, which I'm plainly not, seeing as I collected it and like it and wrote the odd bit myself.

>material, freeforms, panel discussions at cons and of course the ongoing
debate >here.

Which does not make it generally avaialble to the majority of G gamers. Even works in print can be clobbered by this. My good friend Martin Dougherty, who is on this list and doesn't post or read it very often, if a writer of GURPS traveller product. He has encountered Traveller fans who will not even look at his excellent work (Behind the Claw) because it is not canon in the old Traveller sense. In no way does he think his work is GAT because of the debate it causes. He just shrugs and doesn't worry about it.

Me:
>I can't find it in any RMM product I have. Occasional snippets, hints
>and sound bytes perhaps, but no serious step by step essay as Nick has
>produced.

MOB
>One fortunate consequence of this acrimonious debate is that a detailed
>description of the GA version is coming to light, and it is interesting
>that virtually everyone - even you it seems? - prefers it to the
>"ultra-greggly bland succession of identical Moonsons" that you're
>nevertheless pushing.

Moonson is not identical every time, even in Gregs model, far from it. I'm not pushing it like an advertising package, I did want to hammer out the concept. It is what Greg has timelined and what he asked me to consider and write, so its my job to do that. This is pretty simple really. I'm sure you went through the same process writing Sun County.

>Some observations. Unnecessary retconning - especially unnecessary
>retconning on the run - *is* intensely irritating.

There has to be a product to be retconned. I agree you were retconned on Sun County, but not on this. The similar opinions of 10, 20 even 30 digesters does not make it cast in stone, unlike print.

>As I've already pointed
>out, it burns otherwise potential collaborators ("The final result of which
>was that I vowed I would never work on anything based in Glorantha again",
>Mr Danny GD V7 #583).

That is up to them. My view of G was burnt by Greg because it disagreed with his, but I chose to carry on. Choices.

>And it makes currently productive collaborators
>wonder, "why did we bother? And why should we ever bother again?" (Nick, GD
>V7 #579). Such a state of affairs is hardly productive, nor professional.

I agree. Professional people know that things change in business and you do what your boss tells you.

>Earlier in this debate, Nick described the Gregging of Sun County as "the
>most egregious, unacceptable, downright idiotic thing I have *ever* seen
>inflicted on a productive collaborator." I was that productive
>collaborator, and I can only agree. Greg's handling of his Elmal
>revelations ("the cult of Yelmalio is only 60 years old") some three months
>after the publication of SUN COUNTY, the first "RQ Renaissance" release, an
>official product he approved and (presumably) read - left me bewildered,
>confused and hurt (Ken Rolston wasn't that thrilled either).

I know you were pissed. I don't blame you. But this is not the same situation.

>In the end,
>constructing a plausible reconciliation of what he wanted out of his new
>ideas and the existing material was not too difficult (in a nutshell, that
>"the cult of Yelmalio is only 60 years old IN SARTAR"). Shame this couldn't
>have been done before Greg went public.

Because he was and still is filling in back history. He knew it was "wrong" in his mind and said so. Since then he has produced more work and thought on it. The trouble with Glorantha is exactly this. There is so much room and so much empty space that needs to be filled, that we are bound to see problems like this.

>IMO he was wrong then, and Martin/he are wrong now. As I said before, if
>Glorantha stalwarts such as Nick, Peter, David, me et al are reluctantly
>compelled to reject HW content, I'm sure Issaries Inc would prefer we did
>it now, rather than later, when it's in print.

Look at it this way, if there is something in the HW that you reject then I'd be utterly unsurprised. There are things I reject. You cannot expect to like everything in the books. I do not believe that you would reject all the HW books over a couple of concepts you can alter in your Glorantha. I think you are blowing this up out of proportion. There will be tons of new material for you to use and abuse. We all will see this and this is a "Good thing" even if we disagree with some of it. So what? I disagree with some of Tales and some of Enclosure, but it doesn't stop me using the bits I want.  Why should it stop you?

>This unfortunate
>circumstance would be unlikely to happen if HW authors worked with the
>sensible notion that the existing "fan" oeuvre should be looked at and used
>where appropriate.

It is. The problem comes with the agreement from the fan authors, on what is appropriate or not.

>Martin is right when he says many of the details of the GA model need to be
>ironed out. But many people here have also commented that the "if it ain't
>broke, break it anyway" model Martin proposes is ill-conceived,
>inconsistent and clearly *not as much fun* as what we already have.

If it is inconsistent, it is because there is nothing in print on it to be consistent with. If it is dull, then that is up to you as a GM to change. Beleive, me the HW product line is about the HW (strange eh?) and there will be little on the Imperial past. If somewhere it is stated that the Emperor is a giant pixie, then I'm sure you can say it is propaganda and do your own thing. You've done this before, so what is the problem?

> Martin and his hapless sidekick Wesley tied themselves in (Pelorian)
>metaphysical knots attempting to explain it,

If I recall, Wesley made a couple of posts. Hardly tying himself in knots. And he is no more of my sidekick than you are to Nick. My posts caused confusion, due to the way I approached the subject, hardly tying myself in knots, perhaps not expressing myself at all well, for which I have apologised. Several times..

>before Martin seemingly gave in and
>admitted that it is indeed dull and boring and not what he'd do in *his*
>games anyway.

Its not giving in. just the truth I felt all along. I wouldn't play the same Empire as your games so what is the difference?

>IMO, change for change's sake is just egregious scent-marking of the worst
>kind,

And sticking to a position that is not in print and is not solidified and is not even known by the vast majority of gamers isn't? I suppose you have no vested interest in seeing your view in print?

>particularly when we can ably demonstrate that Greg can have what he
>wants without another deeply unnecessary Elmal/Yelmalio debacle in the
making.

There will be no such debate. Unlike Sun County, there is nothing in print. Gregs view does not contradict his FS work, it is one slant on it. There are far less people to be affected by this than before. Sun County was retconned at first though in the end it didn't matter. Here we have far less to worry about. Yes some peoples views will be changed and altered.

However, I spent many posts a couple of years ago debating the Kingdom of War. There were up to a dozen people involved. I had very solid and developed opinions. However, the Glorantha book written by Peter and Greg differs from them. My response? Shrug and do it my own way in my own games but use the material for reference and concepts.

I'm not the man to convince here. Greg has his views on it. If you are really bothered and find this approach so unnacceptable, talk to Greg about it.

Martin Laurie


Powered by hypermail