|
View Poll Results: What Pathfinder Content Do You Want to See FIRST? | |||
Essential Pathfinder Rulebooks Only (e.g. CRB, APG, ACG, UM, UC) | 23 | 15.23% | |
All Pathfinder Rulebooks | 12 | 7.95% | |
Bestiaries and Similar Books | 6 | 3.97% | |
Modules and Smaller Adventures | 7 | 4.64% | |
Adventure Paths and Huge Adventures | 45 | 29.80% | |
Generally Reusable Content (e.g. NPCs, Artwork, Maps) | 4 | 2.65% | |
Golarian Campaign Setting | 10 | 6.62% | |
Player Companions | 0 | 0% | |
Not interested in Pathfinder content | 44 | 29.14% | |
Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
Quote:
You import everything from User2. You now have duplicates of everything that was done by both User1 and User2. So you have go and clean all that content from User1 out. But wait. The content in your realm is all linked to the material from User1. So you also have to re-link all your content to the new material from User2. Both of those steps are going to be extremely annoying, right? There's no problem with the wild west for people creating their own content. It will work fine for that, and I'm not worried in the slightest. The gotcha is with OGL material that can be provided by lots of different users that overlaps. Users will experience both the issues that I outlined above, and it will get even more convoluted if there are a half-dozen users providing the same content instead of just two. I hope that makes more sense! |
|
#41 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
Quote:
For something simple, such as the specific rules for a setting that someone is sharing, using the embedded ".hl" file will work great. For more sophisticated situations, though, that would be a big mistake, as your arguments above all apply. However, the model employed would remain basically the same. Instead of there being a snippet containing the ".hl" file itself, there would be a snippet containing the appropriate secondary updates URL, along with instructions for how to add that URL into Hero Lab. Once that's done, the user would always get the latest version of the appropriate HL data files for the shared content. I believe both approaches will have their place. And I'm guessing that there will be cases where someone starts small with the embedded ".hl" file and their material gains traction with users to the point where it grows and needs to transition to using the secondary updates approach. There will also probably be people who start out with embedded ".hl" file that shouldn't. I'm pretty sure those cases will be recognized by users "in the know" about the better way of handling things, at which point corrections can be made in the next "version" of the content that gets shared. We've got the ability for users to share the same content as an "update" that replaces and/or augments the original content (errata is fundamental to RPGs). So the original snippet gets dropped and the new one with the URL gets added. Users get the new details and everything is right with the world. At least, that's how I'm envisioning things working. We'll see if I'm overlooking something nasty or if authors refuse to accept proper encouragement to use the best approaches for blending their HL files within RW. My guess (hope?) is that it will all work out alright. |
|
#42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bennekom, Netherlands
Posts: 206
|
Quote:
As in real life parts can be governed and other parts cannot not. If there is a group of dedicated users for a specific game system maybe they can be sanctioned by either LW or the publisher to do the work for them. Of course if the Publisher is on board it is (almost) offical work. Of course if the publisher is not on board IP issues may arise and as LW you do not want to be caught up in those. I am not sure if there will be a review system within the CM, but if it is this is also a way for other users to comment on the work that is delivered and in essence govern themselves better. |
|
#43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 161
|
If I could have voted for 2 then it would be the bestiaries and the AP's.
The AP's (be nice if it was Jade Regent and then Crimson Throne...but that's just me, as I am running Jade Regent, and probably Crimson Throne after that), and the bestiaries well be nice to link directly to monsters etc. I am really looking forward to the changes... |
#44 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 60
|
I voted for the AP's. I'm not really a Pathfinder DM, but I have been converting Runelords to 5E. I'm really looking forward to having the data entry part done for me so that I can concentrate on the conversion
|
#45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 267
|
I would love to see Wrath of the Righteous and Giantslayer campaigns.
|
#46 |
Junior Member
|
I am interested in seeing Rise of the Runelords and associated materials. In addition I would like to see the core set of rules (Core, AG, ACG, ARG, All Beastries). These would be my choices for initial release content.
|
#47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 397
|
Quote:
For example, say 3 friends start a "company" and produce content for the market, can any of the 3 update said content? Same question for a "Community Project"... Or should we just, say, share the DB raw via something like GitHub and the users would have to check in/out the whole DB to modify content? I guess another way to "Sheriff" this whole thing would be someone, lets say ShadowChemosh, offers a "Community Base Realm" and other users submits individual books as they do them. The sheriff's job would be to import them into his realm, make sure things are good, then publish the combined effort? -Jamz RPTools.net | MapTool Discord Invite Download Latest MapTool Release | Download Latest TokenTool Release |
|
#48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Greater London, UK
Posts: 2,623
|
Quote:
|
|
#49 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
Quote:
Your idea about having one person merge the content from others into a unified whole would (I think) work well from an operational standpoint. An important thing to keep in mind is IP considerations. RW introduces the ability for users to fold IP owned by others into their realms. That's perfectly fine for your personal use to run your games. However, sharing that material can quickly become a problem. Even with OGL material, there is typically a mixture of Product Identity material mixed in, so users will need to be careful about properly excising the PI material from the OGL material that can be freely shared. I'm assuming that some users will be diligent about that, while others won't be. And the moment that there is a collaborative effort, whoever the "consolidator" becomes will need to police that aspect appropriately. This is all readily achievable, but I feel it's important to keep everyone mindful about these considerations, lest it get glossed over and somebody gets into trouble unnecessarily. |
|
#50 |
|
|