Re: Sources used for future publications

From: David Cake <dave_at_QoDUAq2D4_2dyr7LC3thjYU1qrrfbLzWsD2jf2hNHGpJEc1uZArx7t4lqGjJzTjx468KHCM>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:25:46 +0800

On 25/02/2012, at 10:14 PM, Jeff wrote:

> Arcane Lore itself states in its Introduction that it is "extremely speculative and subject to great changes" - more so than any other book in the Stafford Library.

I totally understand the concerns about Arcane Lore as a source. And one of the most frustrating parts about it is not even knowing who wrote what parts. Some parts I think are still quite useful or valuable (such as one of the few parts of Harmasts saga in print), other parts next to useless for purposes of anything to do with Glorantha (perhaps rejected mechanics might be useful for inspiration for other games and other worlds), some parts nothing but entertaining inspiration.

I'd like to make it clear that I quoted from it recently only because that happened to be where I read the snippet in question - which I was well aware had been published (in not quite identical, but substantially similar) form elsewhere, and was likely to be, if not canon exactly, at least one of the sources informing future canon.

> In contrast GRoY, FS, MSE, HHP, and Heortling Mythology (sorry for the abbreviations!) are deep background but not speculative and unlikely to be subject to much change.

        I'm presuming The Entekosiad is on that list as well?


Powered by hypermail