> 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.
We could of course graciously concede that the 90% of digesters who never post on this subject are uniformly lined up behind Martin's far gregglier model and are merely exhibiting remarkable discipline under fire. But I doubt that we will. :-)
> 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?
You seem to suggest that conventions (and by extension panels and freeforms) are a waste of time, as they distract energies that could more profitably go into writing books, while producing nothing tangible in the way of new ideas.
I don't think that they are.
I think that without the Gloranthan con scene of the nineties, we wouldn't be seeing "Hero Wars" come out today. And I think that to be dissing it now is senselessly provocative. (Though perhaps not surprising).
>> 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.
And I look forward to seeing their own contributions to the further exploration of Glorantha, in print and in games and in discussions. As I have already enjoyed those of MOB, Chris, David, David, David, Alex, Trotsky, Loren, Neil, Guy, Keith, John, Andre etc. (See the difference?)
> I wouldn't argue that Sun County isn't 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..
I would, however, argue that setting out to write the Cult of Shargash for HW while deliberately ignoring the excellent material in Enclosure (and indeed setting out to contradict that material in pursuit of some peculiar new goal of your own recent devising) would be a foolish thing to do.
>> "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.
But fan material *will* become perjorative in players' minds, Martin. You said so in V7 #575. (Well, "pejoritive," maybe). We're just helping this inevitable progression along with a few well-timed expectorations, to set the scene.
> Even works in print can be clobbered by this.
But *should* they be?
> Professional people know that things change in business and you do
> what your boss tells you.
This is my *hobby*, Martin. I don't have a "boss" telling me what to do. Instead, I do things that I *enjoy* doing. Can you really not see this?
> 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.
There's that charming blind spot of yours again, Martin. There are plenty of "empty spaces" in Glorantha which various groups of people have worked long and hard to fill. Often, I should add, in a manner which is both entertaining and consistent with prior publications. I understood that the "Experts" were meant to be looking out for good speculative material, not just writing FAQs to meet the latest greggly needs. (And where *are* the FAQs, BTW?)
> 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.
We can, however, offer constructive suggestions to improve poorly thought out material *before* it is printed in books. Can't we? Isn't that what this is all about?
>> 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.
Denying that fan material exists is, I would suggest, a bad start.
>> Many people here have also commented that the "if it ain't broke, >> break it anyway" model Martin proposes is ill-conceived, incon- >> sistent 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.
Nothing apart from the "Glorious ReAscent of Yelm", the "Fortunate Succession" and the "Entekosiad", it would appear. (I am well aware that trying to achieve any consistency with the Genertela Book is pretty much a lost cause). Or did you sleep through the flurry of well-argued posts on DH and Lunar Parts, a week or so ago?
> 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?
The difference is that *we* are arguing against a proposed model of the Empire which we find boring and don't want to play in. *You* are arguing in favour of a proposed model of the Empire which you find boring and don't want to play in. This *does* make your position rather peculiar, wouldn't you agree?
There are apparently some (unspoken?) constraints you must work under, which seem to have compelled you into undesirable and sometimes untenable positions, incompatible with Greg's prior writings (GRAY, FS, Ent, earlier stuff too), and therefore incompatible with other works derived from those writings (inc. our GAG/RMM/LoM stuff).
I would be *delighted* to help you meet the requirements of those constraints in a more creative, entertaining and consistent way. That would help make your account more acceptable to myself (and, I hope, to other fans of Glorantha).
I have in fact been *trying* to do this. But when I post constructive material setting out how things could work just as well (if not better) using our model (e.g. the "Nightmare Scenario", or our version of the "Interregnum"), you ignore it completely.
How does that get us anywhere?
> Sticking to a position that is not in print and is not solidified
Er, how has our position's "liquidity" manifested itself, Martin? I've seen your own position leaking all over the shop: can you say the same of our material?
>> 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.
The word was "debacle". Did you mean "debacle" or "debate"? (The former would IMO be unwarranted optimism; the latter, rather difficult to enforce).
:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>
Powered by hypermail