Answers...

[duncan_disorderly]

...and our deadlines are 'tight' to put it lightly. It's the only way we can operate as a business and it's the reason Mongoose is still around while most of its rivals have fallen by the wayside. Glorantha is just one of our backgrounds, along with Babylon 5, Conan, Starship Troopers and the generic D20 products we produce. As much as we'd have loved to have employed a Glorantha expert to edit all our books it isn't logistically or financially possible.

This is why I consider it acceptable to say "CoG1 was badly edited" but wouldn't say "Mongoose Fordy is a bad editor" - since I have no way of knowing what constraints you were operating under. Furthermore I see a clear distinction between saying "The layout and editing of the MRQ books is generally poor" (Criticism of the company as a corporate entity) and "Mongoose's editors and layout guys are generally poor" (Criticism of the individuals). I appreciate that this might seem a mighty fine distinction if you are the person whose name is on the book. (My confession is that I wouldn't have had a clue who edited it if you'd not 'fessed up - and I haven't looked to see if you are the only editor who has worled on MRQ or not).

Correct, almost all the big complaints on CoG1 were to do with the editing, and I'll admit, some of it was done through necessity with no thought given to previous versions of the setting. For those who don't like it, that's just tough I'm afraid. Jeff's manuscript was well written and would probably have stayed as written if it had been for RQ3. For MRQ it required considerable editing, much more than a normal product of its size would require, so when people start to criticize it, I understandably get a bit tetchy!

Again, I quite understand. From the viewpoint of an editor battling against time and cost, it makes perfect sense to cut a spell that would otherwise need a major rewrite to fit the latest iteration of the rules. However from a fan point of view, omitting "Sever Spirit" from Humakt is a bit like producing a DrWho sourcebook and not mentioning regeneration in the Doctor's write up...

I'm responsible for the troll snouts, and from the reference material we had at the time, I fail to see what all the fuss was about.

As someone else said, it's no more contentious than giving Elves beards, or making dwarfs clean-shaven...

We've sorted that problem since, but what's more annyoing is the fact that nobody complained when I changed the look of the ducks!! Is that because they previously looked friggin ridiculous?

It's probably because Uz(Trolls) are one of the best loved and most detailed fantasy races around, You rarely if ever see anyone say "There are no Trolls in my Glorantha". The attitude to Durulz (Ducks) on the other hand is much more ambivalent. Some see them as comic relief, some as deaply twagic (*err tragic*) figures, while others just quietly edit them out of their own personal glorantha. This lack of concensus makes it easier for people to accept your vision as "acceptable" even if it doesn't match their own. (Back to "generic fantasy" dwarves - I always consider Dwarves to have either Black or Red hair. If you depict fair haired dwarves I wouldn't object. If you depict skinny, clean shaven dwarves I would...)

Incidentally, rather than complaining about the end product, why not get yourselves on our playtester list, if you think you're tough enough.

a number of reasons
[/quote]

• 
  I didn't know there was such a list that one could apply to join
  The experience of the open playtest for the rules was not wonderful
  I suspect the turn-around times would be too tight given that I'd have to fit in playtesting in my spare time

In a nutshell, keep posting the constructive criticism and pointing out the blunders and we'll keep trying to raise the bar on our products. Carry on being rude and you'll have your posts deleted. Simple rules really.
[/quote]

And the simple answer to Bryan's original question is the word "Offical". Regardless of Jeff's point that ultimately the only source of "official" material is Greg, I think there is a difference between your posting a deviation from "Generally Accepted Glorantha" to your (Fan publication complaint) Website, or one of the appropriate forums - which, while it might attract some "It's not like that in Canon Glorantha" would generally be much less contentious than publishing the exact same thing in an "Official" licenesed RQ book