> I think the point is that the older players should be writing for
> the two lists differently. If they want to make obscure references,
> debate the meaning of mysticism, Mostali work patterns or whatever
> then they should post to the Digest. Here the discussions need to
> stick to things which relate directly to the game and currently
> published works to introduce people to Glorantha in manageable
> chunks. Certainly at some point many newcomers are going to want
> the more in depth coverage of the Digest but by that time they will
> have realised that none of it is required for understanding or
> playing in Glorantha.
Digest esoterica may not be required to understand or play in Glorantha, but that depends entirely on what you are doing with the game. The moment you start heroquesting, or experimenting with magic, especialy ritual magic, the esoterica can become very relevent indeed.
One of my players is playing a priestess of Natha. He was finding it very frustrating, and has a lot of difficulty understanding what the affinities and feats meant, and how to use them. You may remember me raising this here at the time. I skimmed through The Entekosiad, and summarised every mention of Natha or her aspects and put down on 3 pages of A4. he now plays the game with that next to his character sheet, and uses information from it in almost every session. It's become an indispensable tool.
The digest is fine for discussing esoterica simply for the sake of discussing esoterica, but sometimes the esoterica is relevent to playing the game. It was in that case, and I think it is in the case of Taraltarans. Also, since this is a more responsive forum, with a quicker turnaround of messages, it is better suited to discussions of games that may be ongoing. If I had only had the Digest when I needed help with Nathan myths, the Digest would have een too little, too late.
Simon Hibbs
"I'm fed up with this kid's table crap."
Powered by hypermail