Data for different rule systems.

[EightBitz]

If you have a setting that you plan on adapting to different rules systems, how would you manage that? Say, for example, you have a fantasy world and you want to adapt it to Pathfinder and GURPS. You are going to have two different sets of rules for Elves.

Would you create two different topics for an Elf race? Would you create one topic for an Elf race with one section for GURPS rules and one section for Pathfinder rules? Would you create two separate realms for each system? Would you do something different than any of these suggestions?

I'm not looking for "the right way", just thoughts and opinions.

[Aaron]

Personally, I would create one topic, and break the rules for each system into sections within that topic.

[Viral Platypus]

I am assuming that since you're sharing the setting between systems, say, 'Elves' are going to be similar between the two. So, if they hate dwarves and orcs and are dextrous and intelligent in one system then they'll likely be similar in the other. They'll have the same history and basic society and personality.

Given that, I probably keep most of the information about the world in the Almanacs as generic as possible. define specific sections at the bottom for each game system that you're going to use the setting for so you can put important stats, character files, and notes in that are system specific.

For the Rules, you have four options that I see. You can create a general article in each Mechanics Group with the title of the Game system, explaining some basics for the rules of that system for that Group. The Add specific articles in that group with a container of that General article or a sub-article. Sort by containing articles.

The second way would be to use the Identifier fields and do something like "GURPS: " or "Pathfinder: ". Show Identifiers and Sort by Identifiers. All GURPS Articles will be sorted together and then alphabetically.

The Third way is to simply organize your articles more generically and put all the rules in each article in their own sections: a GURPS Section, A Pathfinder Section, etc. For example: Elves: History, Society, Customs, Personality, GURPS, Pathfinder.

4th Way... Use tags. Tag Articles by Game System then use Scope Tag Filtering for a tab you use for rules reference for a session. Assuming you only use one system for a session. Of course this is less organized for comparison when looking at all the articles, but you could always combine it with any of the above methods.

[Silveras]

I think what Viral Platypus is suggesting is the way to go.

RealmWorks is system-independent naturally. Users adding system-specific information is what makes it more or less dependent upon a rule set.

Razor Coast was a stretch goal for the Kickstarter, and happens to have been published for both Swords & Wizardry and Pathfinder.

I expect that the FLAVOR pieces will be in a common Realm. Anything rules-specific will be in a "Derived Realm" from this that either the publisher creates and makes available as a system-specific version or that the user is expected to manage the combination of.

The Repository and Marketplace features, when they are released, are expected to enable "mixing and matching" like that. Your shared flavor Realm can be used to create multiple "derived" Realms, each adding system-specific elements where needed.

[Mystic Lemur]

Another idea might be to tag mechanics so that you can filter them out. Have a separate topic for 4e Elves, Pathfinder Elves, and FATE Elves, and tag them so that you can set a scope filter to only show the articles/topics for the game system you're working in.

The downside is this seems like it would create a huge data duplication issue...

I think I would just make separate realms for setting and for mechanics and then combine them in whatever combination I needed.

[drakahn99]

i would create a realm with non mechanical information in there pertaining to the world, then create a realm for each system your using with material specific to that rule set, then wait for the cloud to open up, then you can share the material with yourself and integrate 2 as needed from my understanding you should be able to do this, and it wont be long before the cloud is implemented.

[Viral Platypus]

The only issue I see with keeping separate realms for setting and rules and combining as necessary is if you make changes to the setting, additional NPCs or events or whatnot, then they don't get carried over to any other copies of the realm. You'll need to make the changes across all the copies you have. That method might be fine for running specific instances of a pregen module so you have a reset button to go back to if you run it again and you can track the progress of the current group, but not sure how it will work for trying to run the same setting for different games at different times as different copies.

[Silveras]

Originally Posted by Viral Platypus

The only issue I see with keeping separate realms for setting and rules and combining as necessary is if you make changes to the setting, additional NPCs or events or whatnot, then they don't get carried over to any other copies of the realm. You'll need to make the changes across all the copies you have. That method might be fine for running specific instances of a pregen module so you have a reset button to go back to if you run it again and you can track the progress of the current group, but not sure how it will work for trying to run the same setting for different games at different times as different copies.

But.. changes to the master copy DO carry down to the child copies. That has been stated previously. That's how corrections and fixes would propagate in purchased data packages, for example. The same would apply when you re-use your own content.