Mechanical Reference - Articles

[timjthomas]

I am trying to add a new entry into the Mechanical Reference area and when I do it says that I first need to Choose a Category, but they dialog box that opens is empty.

Where are the categories??

How do I add something to Equipment, Characters, Abilities, etc?


-------

Ok, it looks like I have to create all of the categories myself for the Mechanical Reference. I would have thought these would have been pre-populated. I certainly hope this is the case for version 1.0.

Reading through a few more posts, it looks like this is intentional to allow RW to be rules agnostics.

Ok -- tool is very powerful, just takes a very long time to get things into it. I'm not sure this is really a time saver for me. Using Evernote with links and handouts, is likely to be far easier for me. Hmmmm. . .

[ShadowChemosh]

Originally Posted by timjthomas

Ok -- tool is very powerful, just takes a very long time to get things into it. I'm not sure this is really a time saver for me. Using Evernote with links and handouts, is likely to be far easier for me. Hmmmm. . .

I guess my thought is that I don't need to duplicate every rule or mechanic in the game (for me its Pathfinder). Instead I entered campaign specific rules like new uses for Profession Sailor as I am running a pirate campaign. I wouldn't re-input every skill which I can easily get off one of the wikis. I have inputted ship types into RW with pictures so that I have a easy reference to describe how a Barque is different than a sloop.

So even for monsters I put in a small tidbit of info and have a URL link to the full monster writeup on the d20pfsrd Wiki. Just don't feel like you said its worth re-entering all this information.

But for campaign specific monsters, NPCs, and events its working out really great so far. This is one my most NPC heavy campaigns and RW is making things much easier to track and remember during actual game play.

Just my 2 cents....

[Silveras]

One thing to keep in mind is that there will likely be data packages of the rules data made available at some point in the future. While that won't help with the initial launch of the product, if you can get along with the books, PDFs, or on-line reference sites for now.. it may be possible to get the core mechanics of a game system for a small price. Like HeroLab, that would be paying for someone else to have put in the material for you. One advantage of that, as I see it, is when I want to add some campaign-specific materials, I will have the "official" category and article formats available to me to match. If I don't wait, I may wind up with more of a mis-matched collection of things (my custom definition of gear in one set of articles and the standard ones in another).

If you would prefer not to pay for a finished product in the future, then that is less of an incentive, and if you want both the mechanics and the story materials in one place, then you have less to lose by starting now. HOWEVER... I would point out that the repository functionality (to come later after the v1.0 release) is key to being able to re-use content you have entered yourself. In other words, as I understand it, you will be able to "import" or "copy" data from one realm to another, and having the mechanics in a separate realm will make it easier to add that to new campaign-specific realms as you need them.

[timjthomas]

Yep -- all good points. I am a bit torn on how to use the tool. I am not the type of GM that "provides" information to the players -- I keep that to a minimum. I try to tell a story and it is the player's job to remember what they think is important.

If they forget something or remember something incorrectly, that just adds to the game. I really don't want them to be able to look up every detail of an NPC that they have happened to have heard.

For example, I will often provide conflicting information -- e.g., an NPC will be referred to as "caring" by some and "domineering" by others. I don't see an easy way to do that in RW, without putting both pieces of information in the tool. Then it simply stares at them in the face.

I don't want that. I want the players to invest some time in the campaign, make their own notes, draw their own conclusions. I've had several cases where a "good" NPC ends up being an enemy of the PCs based on the way things role out.

I'm afraid that putting things down in writing in some way locks some of this dynamic out.

As I said, the tool is very powerful, and I am an Alpha Wolf backer. I am simply struggling how to use it with the way I run the game.

Right now it's looking like I may not use the tool at all.

I'd appreciate others thoughts. . .

[pyremius]

I think once they have the time to go back and work on per-character reveal, it will become more valuable for you. At that point, you'll be able to add the snippet "caring" and reveal it to player A, while snippet "domineering" is revealed to player B. With the GM notes capability you'll be able to add details to each snippet explaining why they are perceived as caring or domineering so you don't forget, and the players will never see that part of the information.

Likewise, you have both public and private relationships to work with (I haven't tested to see if you can have multiple private relationships between the same two people, but that would be even more helpful). This lets you share the friendly relationship, but keep secret the fact somebody is now hostile to the PCs (and why - there's already a description field available for the relationship).

[timjthomas]

Thanks for the comments pyremius. In the case I mentioned above about "caring" vs. "domineering" all players will get both sets of "information." I will for example, often contradict information when the players "talk with NPCs." The reason for this is that each NPC has their own viewpoints, etc.

I can see the tool helping me out. Where I struggle is that I can't see the tool being used by my PCs as at all. I want them to do some work and not be handed information.

If that makes sense. I'm afraid the tool will make the player's "lazy" expecting every detail to be in the tool.

Perhaps I am just being "too hard" on the players. I simply believe that if I spend hours developing a campaign, they should devote some time as well.

Thanks again for all of the suggestions.

[pyremius]

I know player journals are on the roadmap for future features. I'd have to dig back through some of the earliest comments, but I seem to recall a discussion about collaborative GM capability as well. If you put the two together (sort of), you end up with the idea that players can add content (definitely need some way to easily identify it as being "non-canon", etc.). Such information would automatically be shared with the creating character, but then I expect it should only be shared further by the GM.

This sounds like a feature that could be very valuable. Would you mind spending some time fleshing out what you think would be helpful to add (or to exclude - some players I know would lobby for auto-reveal any snippet that includes "pp" for instance )? The rest of us can then weigh in and to refine it and make additional suggestions, so when Lone Wolf has time to start adding new features we've got something fairly detailed that there's documented desire for.

[weogarth]

Personally, I use the Mechanics system for house rules, custom monsters and some specific rulings I've made on how things work.

Since my intention is to (as much as I can) replace my current gaming DB program (MyInfo), I also put in there various articles that I often refer to while gaming. Given how many ways I could envision different people using this section, I think LWD's decision to leave it utterly blank is the correct one and given the absence of things in there this close to release, I wouldn't expect there to be anything in there in 1.0.

[Grey Mage]

Like Weogarth, RW is being used to completely upgrade and replace my existing campaign/gaming reference base.

While I have put some time in with the other components, the Mechanics Reference is where I have been spending the majority of my time (couple hours a day).

While it is blank canvas now when you open it for the first time, what I am most hoping for is that LWD will be fleshing out their initial statements with regard to content licensing. Being able to 'drop' in the PF SRD would be great. Being able to purchase Paizo content for both HL and RW as a bundle would be the very best of both worlds.

[Aleslosh]

Originally Posted by Grey Mage

Being able to purchase Paizo content for both HL and RW as a bundle would be the very best of both worlds.

I'd be all for this bundling idea! .... At least for future content. Considering that a lot of what would be bundled between HL and RW I already have on the HL side of the fence, the bundling of HL & RW products may not offer any savings. Still, an excellent idea.