From: David Cake (davidc@cyllene.uwa.edu.au)
Date: Tue 23 Dec 1997 - 11:21:22 EET
>This Digest is a great place for hashing out consensus in some
>obscure fields, but IMO this is pointless without an end in view,
>and that end should be well-written, well-thought-out articles
>that explain and enhance aspects of Glorantha for use in gaming.
Bravo Nick! A lot of the stuff that people talk about on the digest
is because people are trying to settle questions that come up in their own
games or their own design, and want to talk abou
[there was a bit here where I hassled Klyfix, but I see the comment I was
referring to has been adequately refuted already]
Peter Maranci
> What has happened? We used to see NPCs, magic items, plot hooks,
>scenarios, strange creatures, and other fun game-useful stuff on the
>Digest. Over the years there's been less and less of that.
But the reasons why are not totally bad. One reason that a lot more
Personally, I think its a change for the better. I'd really rather
of the digest consists of chatter rather than game stuff is that there is a
lot more of the digest. Should we tell people not to engage in chatter if
they don't game ready stuff to contribute? Of course not. But one idea
would be to revive the separate daily/ digest concept of Henk - where the
digests come a lot less frequently, but are stuffed full of gameable stuff
rather than discussion.
Another aspect is that once the digest was the only place most
people could usefully publish their NPCs, magic items, etc. But now we have
TOTRM, con books, Drastic, and also innumerable personal web pages, many
with great stuff on it. The content is definately out there and available,
just as it ever was, but its not all in the digest any more.
have issues of Tales, con books, Drastic, and so on, than have the same
stuff is ASCII form.
Cheers
David
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 22:34:00 EEST