Lone Wolf Development Forums  

Go Back   Lone Wolf Development Forums > Realm Works Forums > Realm Works Discussion

Notices

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old October 18th, 2016, 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbs666 View Post
Alternatively, why worry about it at all?

If several content creators produce something similar then let them compete against each other. If it is something the community wants people will find the approach they like best and use it.

Look at the Steam Workshop. For a popular game many different modders may do essentially the same thing. People post reviews and the community figures out which ones are good and which ones aren't.
Um, I think you're overlooking a very important aspect of all this. An example will help illustrate my concern. Let's say that User1 puts together a few of the Pathfinder rulebooks and distributes them under the OGL. Now User2 does the same thing. You adopt the material from User1 for whatever reason. Then User2 becomes the "fan-favorite" source and User1 abandons his efforts. So now you want to switch to the material from User2. Sounds good so far, right?

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!
rob is offline   #41 Reply With Quote
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old October 18th, 2016, 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh View Post
Fair point. My concern would be now that you just turned RW into a source code repository tool that it has to be allowed to "update" the source file. The .hl file that contains the .user files is simply not guaranteed to work with each new update to the Pathfinder HL game. That is not a put down just a simple statement of fact. So the .hl file in the snippet has to have a way to be updated/changed/fixed.

Based on your comments before the content market data can be used in a way that the snippet would "point" to the data. In other words a full copy of the snippet/data would not need to be duplicated into each persons realm. My assumption is that when the data that is being pointed/referenced is updated that a person would be notified. Hence the same could happen to get a new .hl file to everyone.

I said you must have taken this into account as RW needs to be able to take into account changes/fixes/errata to published rules/adventures. But sense I have not seen the content market stuff yet I am not 100% sure.

If the above is not possible then the idea of supporting a secondary update URL in addition to the .hl file could be done. The GM Snippet could have info on setting up the URL into HL. So that future updates would happen from HL not RW. That is an alternate solution that is both good and bad.

The next issue I was seeing was that publisher ABC puts out a .hl file. They stop supporting the RW stuff or maybe go out of business. For community stuff the person simply gets bored of gaming and leaves. The .hl file stops working a year down the line when a new official Pathfinder update comes out. Another person (like myself) fixes the .hl file but now I have no way of getting the fixed file to everyone as I don't have authority to update the Realm the HL file is in. Leaving many people that don't check forums unable to use the HL part of what they got.

You asked but I am feeling this is derailing way off the threads topic...
Excellent points! And you caught me being overly simplistic in my examples, which was probably an error in hindsight, so let me clarify.

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.
rob is offline   #42 Reply With Quote
Cornelius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bennekom, Netherlands
Posts: 206

Old October 19th, 2016, 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob View Post
Um, I think you're overlooking a very important aspect of all this. An example will help illustrate my concern. Let's say that User1 puts together a few of the Pathfinder rulebooks and distributes them under the OGL. Now User2 does the same thing. You adopt the material from User1 for whatever reason. Then User2 becomes the "fan-favorite" source and User1 abandons his efforts. So now you want to switch to the material from User2. Sounds good so far, right?

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!
I am not sure if the wild west will happen, although I understand the concerns. But this issue also creates a sort of loyal fanbase. Especially if there is 'official' work. When for instance the core set of PF is 'official' only users that build upon it (and not duplicate it) are interesting for me. Users that have their own system of doing things will probably be less interesting as I have to do a lot of rework on it to fit it in my own realm. That will prevent me from using material from different suppliers. Users or groups of users could create their own fanbase, so to speak, if they are consistent in their approach.

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.
Cornelius is offline   #43 Reply With Quote
Happydevil43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 155

Old October 19th, 2016, 07:06 AM
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...
Happydevil43 is offline   #44 Reply With Quote
ri_gamer
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 60

Old October 19th, 2016, 01:55 PM
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
ri_gamer is offline   #45 Reply With Quote
jkthomsen9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 267

Old October 21st, 2016, 07:12 PM
I would love to see Wrath of the Righteous and Giantslayer campaigns.
jkthomsen9 is offline   #46 Reply With Quote
Arbarth
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 8
Send a message via Skype™ to Arbarth

Old October 24th, 2016, 02:40 PM
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.
Arbarth is offline   #47 Reply With Quote
Jamz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 397

Old October 28th, 2016, 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob View Post
Um, I think you're overlooking a very important aspect of all this. An example will help illustrate my concern. Let's say that User1 puts together a few of the Pathfinder rulebooks and distributes them under the OGL. Now User2 does the same thing. You adopt the material from User1 for whatever reason. Then User2 becomes the "fan-favorite" source and User1 abandons his efforts. So now you want to switch to the material from User2. Sounds good so far, right?

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!
Is there a way (or will there be a way) for multiple users to share a "Content Owner ID"?

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
Jamz is offline   #48 Reply With Quote
Farling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Greater London, UK
Posts: 2,369

Old October 29th, 2016, 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamz View Post
Is there a way (or will there be a way) for multiple users to share a "Content Owner ID"?

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?
This would be covered by them including support for multiple GMs, which is in the list of requested features (see that forum).
Farling is offline   #49 Reply With Quote
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old October 30th, 2016, 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamz View Post
Is there a way (or will there be a way) for multiple users to share a "Content Owner ID"?

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?
As @Farling indicated, shared access to a realm would require multi-user support. And multi-user support is quite complicated in a disconnected model like RW. So that's not going to be possible out of the gate.

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.
rob is offline   #50 Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright ©1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.