> Hey Greg! It's good to hear you weigh in on this.
>
Thank you.
I had to think hard.
Last time I discussed this poor little sensitive me felt assaulted by a
barrage of ignorance, jealousy and offense.
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Greg Stafford <glorantha1_at_IGVvyiTk9yJDR9ONR1J0SGKHNNj59blBLvh5yYOf9Eu7uWU8yKdq-RXFBXXEVYx7DR1IhocwEObj6A7ZFLo7.yahoo.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Kevin McDonald wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Part of the discussion, I suppose, should be what we mean by "canon"
> > > > in the first place. Is it something that the community decides, or
> > > > licensed publishers, or Issaries, or what?
> >
> > Please do forgive my presumption here, but until I am cold int he grave,
> the
> > official word on what is canon is up to me.
>
> Considering the topic, you are much less likely to be presumptive than
> I am! My apologies if it appears that I was not giving your stake in
> this adequate recognition.
>
I did not think you were slighting me.
i was stating the obvious, for those persons who are less informed than you.
>
> > Officially, it is whatever is published.
>
> How are you defining "published"? Do you mean published by a
> commercial license holder like Mongoose and Moon Design
Yes, and the licensees listed by RM
> or published
> by anybody in any form?
Absolutely not.
Or something in between? I assume you mean
> commercial license holders.
>
It is a discernible line.
>
> This gets back to the "what do we mean by "canon" question. Clearly,
> as the IP owner
and, more basically, originator, discoverer, designer,
you have the right to set license terms however you
> see fit. If we are talking about what the fan community will accept,
> then the standards may be different.
Of course they are. YGWV is not an initiation but admission of an imperative reality.
> These are IMHO two related but
> separate concepts. Things in the "fan canon" - also called Generally
> Accepted Glorantha -
A misleading term at best, though. Not all fans agree on what is GAG.
This is a straw man. A null term, and a little offensive.
Why is some fan material generally accepted, and the rest not?
There is fandom, a wide and glorious ocean of creative talent, and if some
parts of it want to go off and isolate themselves then they will. But I feel
obliged to address this kind of delusional elitism in the name of defining
what is right or wrong Glorantha.
That is my right.
I will continue discussion in light of the broadest interpretation, of whatever is in peoples' individual campaigns or games.
> may (or may not) find their way into the Issaries
> canon if you and the commercial publishers like it. There is no
> guarantee though, either written or implied!
>
Yes.
>
> > Although some of the material by Mongoose made me start to reconsider
> that.
>
> I think this falls under the guideline of "don't contradict published
> material unless you feel you have too".
Actually it is, "Why didn't these guys read the published material?"
If a licensed commercial
> publisher feels they need to contradict something previously published
> then they should contact you for guidance (Assuming that they are
> required to do so by the terms of their license and/or are trying to
> be respectful).
>
Yes, they are supposed to. They are supposed to have authors who are knowledgeable, and who will communicate to me before they launch into their work. but few of them With Robin at the start, and with Loz now, we got that guy finally--beforehand the only one who did was the gent who did the Clanking City (yes, I approved of that cyborg stuff. Start a different thread if you must know why).
>
> > > >On
> > > > the other hand, if someone decided that the Pelandans worship Turos
> > > > and Oria instead of Lodril and Ernalda, and backed it up with cool
> > > > mythlets and stories, then that might be received somewhat more
> > > > warmly. :)
> >
> > Pelandans do worship Turos and Oria.
>
> I was making a veiled reference to the publication of The Entekosiad -
> the "someone" I was referring to was you. Sorry if I was being too
> obtuse!
>
Damned Internet. I would have known if I'd seen you twitch your eyebrows and heard that accent.
>
> > What is definitely true, though, is that
> > > > Glorantha would be much less interesting if, say, authors felt
> > > > constrained to continue saying that Pelandans really do worship
> Lodril
> > > > and Ernalda because Avalon Hill (IIRC) said they did.
> >
> > Yea, but if someone gets that published as canon in opposition to what is
> > there, then when I will write something about it and everyone who
> > contributed to the new interpretation will be crying about being Gregged.
>
> True, but people can get "gregged" if they stick to the Issaries
> sanctioned canon too
Yep. It has even happened to me.
> - and not just by you. Fan publications do
> occasionally get contradicted by subsequent commercial publications
> even when you aren't directly involved. Who could keep track of
> everything that is published by fans?
You mean besides peter metcalfe. (that's a compliment).
> It is clearly much less likely
> to happen if an author doesn't "play in traffic" by contradicting the
> Issaries canon, though.
>
Yes. Absolutely.
> Personally, I try not to contradict previous publications (commercial
> or otherwise) very often. I don't treat all publications with the same
> level of respect, though. In general the older a source is the less
> credence I give it. I also have a "focus standard", where I give more
> credence to articles written directly about something than otherwise
> unrelated articles that mention something for color. My assumption is
> that an author gives more thought to the primary topic than on things
> just mentioned for color.
>
All good assumptions, and what I have essentially assumed everyone does,
with varying standards of course.
Heck, I have my own screening and filters of veracity and importance
>
> Like most authors I fill in the "blank spaces" of a topic with my own
> ideas. (Not that I write much these days.) I don't do it with the
> expectation that it will be adopted into anyone's idea of canon,
> though. When new things get published I either accept it and adapt or
> put a metaphorical box around it and avoid including that subject in
> what I write.
>
Indeed, precisely what I expect.
Why not? We do it when we read history books, we do it when we read fiction,
when we read the news. Math usually holds up to universal acceptance (except
when mathematicians are talking about it), but who wants to write a game
based just on math?
Done that. :-)
The reason I talk about this so passionately is that I love Glorantha
> and want to see it continue to bloom with good ideas.
Me too.
> The way to get
> new good ideas is to encourage the creation of new ideas in general
> and then choose the best from what comes up. I particularly want to
> encourage new ideas that breathe life into things that have not been
> given much attention previously.
>
Yes, yes, yes.
I'd love to see more "Here is what happened in my campaign" chatter that the incessant "this is more right than that" that sometimes dominates. It is not about whether or not the Humakti include psychotic murderers or not, or if Vinga--oh Cat's Bit!--I'm not going there again without a writ of safe passage.
There is a relationship between the amount of creative material being spawned in the fanzines and the amount of material that will appear. Fans so often complain, "feed me," and sometimes "feed me so I can do the work" but essentially, those fanzines that we all love so much were not dependent on official published works to keep themselves going. Many people, much excitement, lots of gamemasters (thank you Newt). Don't expect Jeff to work like a Mongoose slave for too long! Feed him! He's doing all the work, and I urge everyone to just nut up and take the next step and write. If you are in college and still at the crazy energy stage, write something for Glorantha. If you are among the settled humans, present that idea that you have been brooding about for the last 20 years. Are you afraid of rejection? I won't reject it--not getting published is no rejection.
> You are my favorite Gloranthan author because of your ability to write
> things that open up new vistas of possibility. For example you took
> Peloria - which had previously been lightly and crudely described -
> and breathed so much life into it with the Pelorian trilogy that I
> still get something new from them every time I pick one of them up.
> Did you contradict what had previously been written? Occasionally,
> yes. Did you do it wholesale or arbitrarily? No. Was it the right
> thing to do? Absolutely!
>
Thank you.
That was all so that I could write the story of Sedenya.
> Even with the Orlanthi, which I thought I knew pretty well, you blew
> my mind with stories and articles depicting heroforming and
> heroquesting. They caused me to look at the Orlanthi - and Glorantha
> generally - in a whole new way, which was delightful!
>
I am fulfilled.
> I would love to have that kind of creative ability, and would love it
> if there were many others who did as well. This is what I meant when I
> said "Heroform Greg. If you meet the canon on the road, shoot it." I
> want more Entekosiads and Glorious Re-assent of Yelms. Preferably from
> you, but your time is limited.
>
Yes
Carpe diem
> If it can't be you that writes them then it would be great if there
> were others who are practiced at thinking big in a Gloranthan context.
> For most of us, that takes practice. Lots and lots of practice. It
> also seems daunting and perilous from the gregging and community
> acceptance points of view. Therefore, I encourage potential authors to
> worry less and take more risks, keeping in mind that the work they do
> may be dismissed or changed beyond recognition by future writers.
> Instead of looking on that as a problem, feel liberated by it - get
> excited and participate!
>
YGWV Wonderfully said Kevin, thank you.
--
Greg Stafford
Game Designer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail