From: Jim DeGon (jdegon@vega.iii.com)
Date: Mon 23 May 1994 - 14:41:59 EEST
Re: Devin's comments
I dislike the amount of conflict that has been engendered by Devin's comments about the content of the daily. I agree with much of what he had to say about the scholarly bent being intimidating to players and gm's of the game, but I think that he may have invested enough emotion to cause a scholarly backlash of sorts -- none of which is really interesting to argue about.
The scholarly intimidation problem arises when the posters make an already intimidatingly detailed world much moreso by "citing" and counter-"citing" the sources; especially those long out of print or unpublished. Lately this has been compounded by an nearly impenetrable argument in which the posts are basically directed between two individuals. This would probably have been better with more summarization and less quoting, or better yet, fought out in email and then the two still-differing opinions posted in detail. Technically, only Greg Stafford's opinion carries real weight, while each individual's carries real game value. I'm sure that Devin and Alex do not allow any players to quote Greg's material to them when they have already decided to handle something otherwise.
I haven't actually noticed a lot of posting about rules questions, although I remember one post to the RQAIG list with RQ3 questions (several months ago) followed by the accusation "didn't anyone bother to playtest this game?" which was answered with "didn't you bother to read the rulebook?". This may or may not have been deserved, but it would be nice for all to concentrate on constructive posting, and since this roleplaying game stuff is really only a matter of taste, it might be nice to see a whole lot more of these --> IMHO
^
Jim DeGon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:32 EEST