Re : Roleplaying groups

From: George W. Harris (
Date: Sun 19 Mar 2000 - 17:46:55 EET

[this certainly isn't meant to pick on Simon, and I'm aware that Mikko made
the same distinction, but still I feel this should be pointed out as long
as we're being even-handed in our evaluation of role-playing preferences...]

>Mikko Rintasaari
>>And after this rather sensible definition a great number of people rushed
>>to point their noses high into the air and demand and apology for this
>>such oppressive elitist comments.
>And quite rightly too. Although I'd have thought if anyone was sticking
>their noses high into the air, it is those people who talk about 'better
>roleplaying groups', implying that any groups who don't play the way
>they do are bad roleplaying groups.

        This is true, but...

>>I want to explore new ways of thinking, ethics and metaphysics,
>>_as_well_as_ have fun.
>So do I, but that doesn't mean I can't have a fantastic time playing an
>MGF scenario at a convention.

        ...this, in turn, by drawing a distinction between the two seems to imply
that those groups who think that new ways of thinking, ethics and
metaphysics *are* the essence of MGF are in some way bad roleplaying groups.
Which is simplistic, divisive and abusive.

- --
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

George W. Harris


End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #474

To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe"
command to Glorantha is a
Trademark of Issaries Inc. With the exception of previously
copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this
digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to
copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to
archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.

Official WWW at
Archives at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:11:30 EEST