Broken Broken Council

From: Curtis Lyons (
Date: Mon 13 Jan 1997 - 03:41:27 EET


        I'm a newbie to this list. I was informed by Andrew Joelson that
the answers to many of my questions were present within the digest and
decided that I needed to be able to see it since the information was not
being provided to convention goers anywhere else. I have not had the
opportunity to see #61-66 so forgive me if some of my comments are made
moot by things in those issues.
        First a very brief introduction. I was first introduced to
Runequest and Glorantha in ca.1980 in a too-large gaming group which
included digest-member John Medway. In 1982 I started running a small game
which lasted about 3 years. I ran a second campaign starting in 1987 which
also ran about 3 years. Since then my gaming group has been scattered

throughout the nation and I have had very little chance to play but have
kept up with the publications of Chaosium and Avalon Hill and was able to
attend the first RQCon in Maryland. Shannon and Eric (and maybe others)
know me from the ArsMagica list which I was a member of for some time.

        Now that that is out of the way, let me say that I've been quite
surprised by the 'reasons' that have been given on here for cancelling the
premier event (and the THIRD LARP) of this convention. I was stunned by
the success of the Home of the Bold in Maryland and will join Michael
Schwartz in saying that Broken Council was the primary reason for myself
and three of my old gaming group for attending. Of course there are other
aspects that I look forward to, but nowhere near as much as BC!
        I am most surprised by Stephen Martin's comments: "we had to make
a decision of whether to finish working on the game or not." Call me old
fashioned, but I thought you had made that decision when you told Andrew
(or whomever) that you would run it. When you say you will run something
then you run it. You can call that notion simplistic, but I prefer simple.
        I do not join Mr.Schwartz's seeming absolution of the Convention
organizers, however. Just as it is the duty of the people who say they
will run an event to have it ready in time, it is the duty of the
convention organizer to make sure the premier even happens. If this means
staying on the event judges' butts then you do it, if it means drumming up
support for the event by an advertising campaign, rescheduling of
conflicting events or pressing people into service (including yourself)
then you do it.
        I do not wish to speak for others but I believe that I echo
Michael Schwartz and Neil Robinson's groups by saying that the worst thing
about all of this is the apparent lack of desire to make this work. I am
most confused by Mr.Martin's comment that a decision was made that to
attempt to recruit players for the event would be damaging to the
convention. How could trying to make the biggest event a success be
perceived as damaging?
        I do not believe that the people involved understand how damaging
this decision has been to the convention and Runequest renaissance (as I
believe Mr.Schwartz pointed out). On top of the failures of the "Argrath
unites the Tribes of Prax" and the "Pendragon" LARPs to deliver as
initially promised, more and more it appears that this convention is being
written off in favor of the British Columbia con. I can't help but feel
that if there was only one con this year and everyone put the full force
of their efforts behind it instead of splitting between two then perhaps
we would have had our first successful con East of the california line in
three years.
        Also don't forget that the world of RQ stretches beyond this
digest. There will be people that show up in Chicago who have no way of
knowing that this event has been cancelled. Just because many of you have
already played this event (which I can't help but think contributed to the
blase attitudes toward its cancellation), don't think that it isn't being
looked at with as much anticipation that we all had when we first
played HotB.
        My last negative (well, let's say critical) comment is that I
believe that it is naive to think that you won't get 16 walk-up
registrants for an event of this magnitude (you remember, the one on all
the literature for the convention). ESPECIALLY if some of the conficting
LARPs were rescheduled to make room. But even without that there are
always walk-ups who didn't register for whatever reason! And recognize
that 16 is a rather small number. Heck the appeal on this digest got 10,
for God's sakes. And then as a seeming final insult we are told that we
have the option of letting them keep the money sent and they will give us
the same bloody book that we would have gotten if we had been able to play
in their game!
        I want to end this with something positive. I'd like to join the
others who have thanked Nick Brooke for his offer to not only cancel his
event (which I'm sure he has worked very hard to have completed as
promised) but to play (especially in view of his review of BC at the
Oakland Con) if necessary. I am sure that if the effort had been made
these types of offers by those who understand the damage which the
cancellation of a headline event can do would have flowed freely. Heck I
bet Stafford would play if asked and then you could advertise that fact
and bring more people in...
        My apologies for the length of this rant, Medway, Shannon and Eric
can vouch for the fact that I am nothing if not long-winded. My apologies
if my comments have unduly offended anyone but it has been my experience
that sometimes such things cannot be avoided. Now that I am a member of
this list hopefully I can contribute in a less-critical way in the future.
I'll replace my usual baseball quotes in my sig with quotes from the
Archives of my second campaign, hope you find them enjoyable.

Curtis Lyons- Rebel without a clue.

                        "I'm Yelmalio, I'm running."
                                        -Farzote, Initiate of Yelmalio



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:56:02 EEST