Re: Re: Blue Pill Time

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_Jrv7y8PyZBiI4c5GgxfyKsH7tLazMJ7wBaeQT1ULO2V5hKPmlxCR0Zn_ttCq5>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:06:32 +0100 (BST)


> The IP issues are not what the list is about, but
> they were the prime
> mover that made it very sensible to create a new
> list. And the new
> list definitely has more activity than either of the
> old lists.

It may well do, but the way it was presented was still horrible. Nothing to say "sorry to not use the existing perfectly good lists, but..." Just ignoring them.

> No, the guys at Mongoose are professionals. Robin
> is a professional.

True. And Mongoose have spectacularly failed to live up to standard, on the whole, though again it varies with author more than with publisher.

> > > Second, the Glorantha described in "gaming
> > > supplements" is always going to be fundamentally
> > MGF.
> >
> > Of course. That's what it's for.
>
> Which is different from the creative mythology stuff
> - mythology
> doesn't necessarily have MGF as a driving principle.

Sure. But the one that people actually use has to be the "real" one, and exercises in what the mythology might be like if it wasn't like it really is, are interesting as local variations, no more.

> This isn't software, this is creative literature.

No, it's roleplaying supplements.  

> What the fuck is "correctness" supposed to mean?

Usability. Fitness for purpose. Which includes, among other things, compatibility. And that means compatibility with the universe actually in use, not some other one that might have existed in a parallel universe.

> Complaining about spelling errors is legitimate

Though trivial - as long as we can understand what's being said, spelling errors are sloppy and incompetent, but they don't matter.

> Greg's stories (and for that matter mine or
> anyone else's) are just that - stories.

The stories may well be, the roleplaying products are not. And even with a story - why not make sure it fits the existing universe? It's not hard, and it means the thing actually makes sense to the readers. It still startles me somewhat when I hear that people have taken something I've dropped into a story and used it in their campaigns: when they tell me they've assumed it must be right because I've written it, that's scarey. And, it's a responsibility. If they're going to make that assumption, I'd better live up to it, or plaster everything with disclaimers.

Stories... if an author writes a standard fiction trilogy, and a fact alters between volume 1 and volume 2, they get slated, and quite right too. That's not artistic or creative, it's just sloppy workmanship. If this stuff is fiction, then the same standards apply.

> And for that matter, I'm
> selling copies of the Orlmarthingsaga at Tentacles

That's campaign chronicles? And sold as such? Or presented as how the background "really" is?

> Maybe people will buy it, maybe people won't.

On that basis, quite possibly they will. And if your Glorantha doesn't differ too much from the standard, they may even use bits of it as background, as well as having an entertaining story to read.



Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html            

Powered by hypermail