Gloranthan Opinions
- Thread starter soltakss
- Start date
- Status
sidkfjjteidlkkf
Mongoose
Hey Simon,
I think thjis list (Forum) meets all the requirements he has mentioned. You just have to browse to find them all. We are known to go off topic, but we do chat..
I think thjis list (Forum) meets all the requirements he has mentioned. You just have to browse to find them all. We are known to go off topic, but we do chat..
RosenMcStern
Mongoose
Uh-oh. Flame wars ahead.
Well, I have been posting on the Gloranthan ML since 1996 (I consider WoG as the rightful heir to the now-defunct Glorantha Digest), and on the MRQ forum since 2006. Like Soltakss, I post much more here than on the WoG forum, but this does not mean that I do not consider WoG full of useful contents. As an example, a matter of languages that is rather crucial to Rurik's new PBEM has been discussed on WoG rather than here. I did not post my opinion there, but certainly the answers given by Jeff R. on that ML were crucial to the process of designing my own (RQ) player character.
As for WoG being newbie-unfriendly, almost all lists are. You must be prepared to a lot of coldness the first times you post on a new ML, although this does not happen all the times.
As for the esoteric posts, well, this is the beauty of Glorantha :wink: I think that not being able to memorize/comprehend everything I read helps suspension of disbelief.
As for WoG being rather anti-RQ, erm, this is just a fact. 80%-90% of the WoG posters are heavily HQ-biased. But the discussion has always been rather polite, with only one possible exception that has been immediately stopped by Greg himself.
So I think there is no need to start a MRQ vs. WorldofGlorantha holy wa... erm, argument. Some subjects are best discussed here, some on WoG, and some, like the Size of the Clanking city, on both forums.
Well, I have been posting on the Gloranthan ML since 1996 (I consider WoG as the rightful heir to the now-defunct Glorantha Digest), and on the MRQ forum since 2006. Like Soltakss, I post much more here than on the WoG forum, but this does not mean that I do not consider WoG full of useful contents. As an example, a matter of languages that is rather crucial to Rurik's new PBEM has been discussed on WoG rather than here. I did not post my opinion there, but certainly the answers given by Jeff R. on that ML were crucial to the process of designing my own (RQ) player character.
As for WoG being newbie-unfriendly, almost all lists are. You must be prepared to a lot of coldness the first times you post on a new ML, although this does not happen all the times.
As for the esoteric posts, well, this is the beauty of Glorantha :wink: I think that not being able to memorize/comprehend everything I read helps suspension of disbelief.
As for WoG being rather anti-RQ, erm, this is just a fact. 80%-90% of the WoG posters are heavily HQ-biased. But the discussion has always been rather polite, with only one possible exception that has been immediately stopped by Greg himself.
So I think there is no need to start a MRQ vs. WorldofGlorantha holy wa... erm, argument. Some subjects are best discussed here, some on WoG, and some, like the Size of the Clanking city, on both forums.
Loz
Mongoose
Jeff Richard has posted here from time to time and I know he keeps an eye on the Mongoose board.
Jeff's also very supportive of the Mongoose Glorantha books. He and I have been working extensively together on the Dara Happa book, as has Mr Stafford.
Where the lists are concerned, they're very different beasts, as Paulo rightly says. If you want to discuss detailed Gloranthan minutiae, as many do, then its a good place for certain insights. This list tends to go for broader strokes where Glorantha's concerned, and again that's a valid approach too. It depends very much on what you want to get from your Glorantha.
Jeff's also very supportive of the Mongoose Glorantha books. He and I have been working extensively together on the Dara Happa book, as has Mr Stafford.
Where the lists are concerned, they're very different beasts, as Paulo rightly says. If you want to discuss detailed Gloranthan minutiae, as many do, then its a good place for certain insights. This list tends to go for broader strokes where Glorantha's concerned, and again that's a valid approach too. It depends very much on what you want to get from your Glorantha.
This is interesting. Actually, I don't fully understand why this topic needs to be discussed. But since we're here, I'll throw my two dimes on the table. 
I think roleplaying in general always has two interconnected perspectives:
1) World creation
2) Actual (game) play
Those who concentrate on creating the world invariably build a deep and varied understanding of what the world is about, and how. This usually means pondering questions of society, culture, history and religion. Those who play games in the world often find this understanding "esoteric".
Those who concentrate on playing games in the world invariably build a deep and varied understanding of what the game is about, and how. This usually means pondering the game system, simulation, character creation and game balance. Those who create the world often find this understanding "esoteric".
For some reason, "esoteric" is still used more of the world creation rather than equally of game play. Personally, I have both created and played, yet for me the discussions on game play and rules systems is way more "esoteric" than discussions on e.g. Gloranthan cultures.
On HQ & RQ... Yes, they are different. The systems aim at different things, and have different methods of resolution. It comes naturally that people choose systems that suit their preferences, and that the systems used thus mirror the preferences of the players. There's no utility in building value-laden opinions of those who use one or the other of the systems, or no system at all.
Both RQ and HQ are "esoteric" to me, as are the discussions around the systems. This is not so much a result of the systems, but rather a result of me using my time more with world creation than with the systems. Yes, I spend more time hanging on the WoG ML than here, but it would be a blatant misunderstanding to think that I would be somehow despising this forum.
Often the most interesting and challenging questions and insights in WoG ML come from people who approach the setting from the game play perspective. It's those who play no attention to dug-in premises that get to share the most. And almost invariably the discussions both here and "there" are superbly polite, aiming at real understanding of different angles of approach.
Discussion is all that matters, the salt of both perspectives, the way to build up understanding and mutual feel-good.
IMHO.
-Ilkka
I think roleplaying in general always has two interconnected perspectives:
1) World creation
2) Actual (game) play
Those who concentrate on creating the world invariably build a deep and varied understanding of what the world is about, and how. This usually means pondering questions of society, culture, history and religion. Those who play games in the world often find this understanding "esoteric".
Those who concentrate on playing games in the world invariably build a deep and varied understanding of what the game is about, and how. This usually means pondering the game system, simulation, character creation and game balance. Those who create the world often find this understanding "esoteric".
For some reason, "esoteric" is still used more of the world creation rather than equally of game play. Personally, I have both created and played, yet for me the discussions on game play and rules systems is way more "esoteric" than discussions on e.g. Gloranthan cultures.
On HQ & RQ... Yes, they are different. The systems aim at different things, and have different methods of resolution. It comes naturally that people choose systems that suit their preferences, and that the systems used thus mirror the preferences of the players. There's no utility in building value-laden opinions of those who use one or the other of the systems, or no system at all.
Both RQ and HQ are "esoteric" to me, as are the discussions around the systems. This is not so much a result of the systems, but rather a result of me using my time more with world creation than with the systems. Yes, I spend more time hanging on the WoG ML than here, but it would be a blatant misunderstanding to think that I would be somehow despising this forum.
Often the most interesting and challenging questions and insights in WoG ML come from people who approach the setting from the game play perspective. It's those who play no attention to dug-in premises that get to share the most. And almost invariably the discussions both here and "there" are superbly polite, aiming at real understanding of different angles of approach.
Discussion is all that matters, the salt of both perspectives, the way to build up understanding and mutual feel-good.
IMHO.
-Ilkka
Voriof said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that opinions on one mailing list/forum didn't apply to others.
You should never think better of me - I always disappoint eventually.
In any case, I was just stirring - don't read anything more into it except that I was bored that day and Eurmal slipped through a crack in my head and took over for a while.
Anyway, I always go by the maxim "If you don't want people to quote you, don't say it".
- Status
