Julian Lord:
> You've a point here, but a blunter one than you think. Many _features_
> of Glorantha (and therefore HW) are _deliberately_designed_ to look
> like bugs, to provoke the natural response among players and GMs that
> "here's something that needs fixing". This is Greg Stafford's single best
> game design technique, and no-one else that I'm aware of uses it as subtly
> and skilfully as he does.
I've heard a version of this explanation about some aspects specifically of HW, but I'd be fascinated to learn what features of _Glorantha_ could be so characterised (other than via HW- (or RQ-)reverse-engineering).
> Of course, the occasional critique or suggestion for "Greg and Friends" is
> fair use of the HeroWars forum, but not the kind of all-out assault that the
> "Re: Barbarian Adventures" thread is turning into.
I'm personally not in favour of all-out assaults on Greg and Friends/ Barbarian Adventures, but conceptually, herowars _does_ sound like the right forum for them. (Moderator Policy May Vary, of course.)
> >One core difference between HeroWars and the Glorantha Digest
> >lists is that HeroWars is a place for positive contributions, and the
> >GD is more geared to negative ones. Whether or not this is the ideal
> >structure for the Mailing Lists, I've no idea. Probably not.
Graham Robinson:
> This is NOT a good guide to the differences. Both lists should maintain
> similar levels of politeness, and both should stay on topic. The major
> difference is how in-depth such discussions are. Hero Wars is intended for
> introductory or new player questions, the Digest for deeper discussions.
> Fine detail and philosophy are both appropriate here.
It's not a good basis on which to establish a difference, but Julian's description might be seen as having a certain "de facto" accuracy. Certainly I see little effective risk that a discussion will get kicked off herowars for being "too finely detailed", and rather more that it would for being "too negative".
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail