>IMO any desiress to limit attacks on HW and Glorantha to private e-mail,
>OpenHeroWars, and other off-list forums are doomed to failure, not to
>mention counter-productive, and ... er ... .
Limiting attacks on Glorantha has never been my intention. As I stated, criticism of Glorantha, Gloranthan background, etc. is entirely on topic for the Glorantha Digest. Criticism of HeroWars is more difficult. In most cases, it is more appropriate for the HeroWars list. Julian gives one example where it may be appropriate (Hero Wars not illustrating known or desired Gloranthan reality.) Grey areas are always going to occur. The Digest also has a very large tolerance for topics, so if in doubt, erring on the side of posting to the digest is always the safest bet...
>I'm hoping that Graham really meant that out-and-out _HW-Bashing_ is
>unappropriate, but the statement that the GD should be "of interest to
>those who have no interest in Hero Wars, but an interest in Glorantha"
>seems, though ambiguous, to be pointing in the wrong direction.
>
>And a little self-contradictory IMO.
>
>As John pointed out in a recent HeroWars post, Glorantha is for gaming, and
>that
>means Hero Wars. Even if one were to consider Glorantha as more important
>than
>HW ( ??? ) , surely that means that criticism of HW (not as a set of rules,
>but as an illustration of Glorantha) is actually _quite_ appropriate to
>the GD.
There is a false assumption here. A number of people are still gaming quite happily in Glorantha using Runequest, and possibly other systems. The Glorantha Digest should and does support such people. Obviously the material in Hero Wars products is relevant, but the interest assumed for readers of the digest should be the world, not the game.
>I fail to see that certain types of eminently GD-type discussions of Glorantha
>are even * possible * without an element of "criticism of Hero Wars products
>and their content".
The phrase "and their content" was poorly chosen. Recent complaints about the focus of Hero Wars books (and the replies and rebuttals these provoked) has done nothing to further our understanding of Glorantha, which is the Digest's main reason for being. Criticisms such as Alex's recent comments on the exogamous nature of heortling clans (whether you agree with them or not) are entirely on topic.
>PS (Clarification of my own, having read Graham's post)
>
>When I said the GD is a place for "negative contributions", I really meant
>that
>the GD is a place to explore possible faults in Glorantha and the _relevantly_
>_Gloranthan_ content of HW and HW products, as opposed to the HeroWars list
>and its "positive" skew towards helping other people in the Gloranthan
>Community play the HW game.
>
>Not : "The GD is a great place for a flamewar" or somesuch.
Hopefully it is obvious that I mis-understood Julian's use of the word 'negative'. His description above is entirely correct, IMO. If I had understood Julian's point in the first place, the need for me to post would have been very small. Sorry about that.
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Glorantha Digest Moderator
Powered by hypermail