From: jc@crosfield.co.uk (jerry cullingford)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:  rec.arts.dragonlance
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:44:15 GMT
Reply-To: jc@crosfield.co.uk (jerry cullingford)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <1992Apr4.180931.15062@uunet.uu.net> EGIBBS@csci1.csci.unt.edu (Austin Gibbs) writes:
>Group: rec.arts.dragonlance
>Status: unmoderated
>Proposed Charter:
>   The Dragonlance series from TSR, the makers of the AD&D role-playing 
>system, has become a series with several books on the bestseller list. 
>There are many uses for a discussion group.

As a general comment, I'm not convinced that there's actually a need for
a seperate group. To take the possibilities in turn...

>   Testing new short stories on people already familiar with the dragonlance
>world of Krynn.

Maybe. But TSR are likely to object strongly if you use anything identifiably
(copyrightedly) dragonlancish without their permission. And people writing
_with_ their permission are probably intending to sell the results :-).

I'd probably vote against a group with a charter encouraging copyright
violation. But if you can persuade TSR to allow fan-written stuff, maybe with
a disclaimer or whatever to keep the lawyers happy, that'd be different :-).

>   A place for DM's to exchange ideas on running campaigns in the 
>Dragonlance world.

 try rec.games.frp?

>   Discussing new releases of Dragonlance books.

 try rec.arts.sf.written/.reviews

>   Discussing questions about the world of Krynn.

  either rec.arts.sf.written or rec.games.frp, as appropriate :-)

I'm not convinced there's necessarily a big enough overlap between the
players and the readers :-) to make a single group worthwhile.

An observation: I haven't noticed much (any?) dragonlance discussion in
rec.arts.sf.written so far, so I don't see much demand for that at the
moment.

I haven't been reading the frp group recently, so I can't comment on that.

(as an aside: I'd rate the books as reasonable pulp; fun light reading for
D&D players, but not worth paying full price for - and we avoided the modules
as being too manipulative (a consequence of forcing players along a long
series of modules with a fixed plot line and required survivors and victims).

It strikes me that there really isn't all that much _unique_ about the
dragonlance world (not particularly meant as a criticism :-) ); Most of
the Role-playing issues would have a lot in common with other settings,
and would make more sense in a general frp group - other campaigns would
have similar problems and supply/be interested in similar solutions.

And most of the book related stuff would fit fine in r.a.sf.w unless massive
volumes caused a problem, which it hasn't so far. (more the opposite :-) )

Is there really enough volume to make a seperate group a good idea, since
there are already obvious places to post discussions? It doesn't look like
it on the book side... and creating a new group is unlikely to produce a
massive increase, since there _are_ places to post already; It's not as
though there's nowhere to talk about it.

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+     |
| Jerry Cullingford  #include <std.disclaimer>     +44 442 230000 |   ,-|--
| jc@crosfield.co.uk (was jc@cel.co.uk) or jc@cel.uucp      x3868 |   \_|__
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ \___/