Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!mcnc!thorin!unc!oliver
From: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.games.frp.fiction or alt.frp.fiction
Keywords: rec.games.frp
Message-ID: <11022@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 89 20:03:44 GMT
References: <834@wet.UUCP>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 22

In article <834@wet.UUCP> tsource@wet.UUCP (Aryeh Friedman) writes:
>Lately rec.games.frp has been getting alot of fictional stories posted to it.
>In my option these deserve to have their own group.  Also people have been
>posting stuff that is about a specfic campaigns and are lossing the rest of
>the net in a private conversation which would be ok in this group.
>Examples: Tower of Tabernak (sp?) and Diana and the what ever characters are
>involved.
>


I don't think it would be a good idea.  First, these stories come and go.
Second, most of the discussions of private campaigns are intelligible
if you start reading them from the beginning -- like many conversations,
they are incomprehensible when you come in halfway through.  Finally, 
IMHO rec.game.frp still has a nicely manageable volume, and there is 
no reason to fix what ain't broken.  If the volume of the group were
way up there, and sifting through the group was a hassle, then I would
agree.  But things seem pretty much OK to me, right now.  I don't see
the need to split it up.


billo