Supported Game Systems

[JazzIsBlues]

So, the default settings focus on Pathfinder and Pathfinder terms for things, is there any support for other game systems? Specifically in this case I'm looking for Savage Worlds support..

Tks,

JiB

 

[AndrewD2]

Realm Works supports EVERY game system.

 

[Viking2054]

More specifically, Realm Works is game system independent and you can tailor it to whatever game system you are using.

 

[JazzIsBlues]

More specifically, Realm Works is game system independent and you can tailor it to whatever game system you are using.

I get that Viking, but for things like tags for characters or npcs and such it thinks in terms or character classes and such for Pathfinder. I'm asking if there's a way to change its gears so it thinks in Savage Worlds terms since that's what I tend to run games in.

JiB

 

[AEIOU]

I'd recommend you create custom categories that match your needs. You can easily do this. Many folks are doing it as their default regardless of system -- Pathfinder, 5e, CoH, Paranoia, SW, etc.... That gives them maximum flexibility.

The only caveat with custom categories is that purchased material will likely be placed into the standard categories. So if you plan to use the marketplace for SW materials (assuming there will be some down the line) you may have two categories that contain similar things.

 

[JazzIsBlues]

I'd recommend you create custom categories that match your needs. You can easily do this. Many folks are doing it as their default regardless of system -- Pathfinder, 5e, CoH, Paranoia, SW, etc.... That gives them maximum flexibility.

The only caveat with custom categories is that purchased material will likely be placed into the standard categories. So if you plan to use the marketplace for SW materials (assuming there will be some down the line) you may have two categories that contain similar things.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

JiB

 

[Farling]

You could also just remove the protection from the standard tags groups and delete the pre-defined entries (since they're not relevant to your system).

 

[rob]

I'd recommend you create custom categories that match your needs. You can easily do this. Many folks are doing it as their default regardless of system -- Pathfinder, 5e, CoH, Paranoia, SW, etc.... That gives them maximum flexibility.

The only caveat with custom categories is that purchased material will likely be placed into the standard categories. So if you plan to use the marketplace for SW materials (assuming there will be some down the line) you may have two categories that contain similar things.

I strongly encourage you to NOT use this approach. Yes, this approach works, but it will have the most potential negative ramifications and entails the most amount of effort.

For example, all the material for Blood Drive is fully entered into Realm Works (it's a Kickstarter stretch goal). I don't believe we touched anything on the Story side, as it all worked perfectly well. On the Mechanics side, I think we added only a couple categories that are tailored specifically to Savage Worlds mechanics (e.g. monsters).

Your best bet is to do what @Farling recommended above. You primarily just need to revise all the tags, which are admittedly more closely aligned with D&D and Pathfinder. If there are tweaks you want to make to categories as well, you are perfectly safe adding some new section types and/or snippet types to them. In fact, if you do that and import content like Blood Drive, you can readily add your new extensions to the imported content smoothly.

In general, we recommend everyone stick with the provided category structure and augment it as needed - which is perfectly safe. Tags are where things will often change rather substantively across game systems.

Hope this helps!

 

[Bobifle]

Anyone interested in the subject should read the manual "Tips and Tricks", section "4.11. Changing the Structure of Categories"

 

[Parody]

In general, we recommend everyone stick with the provided category structure and augment it as needed - which is perfectly safe.

Unfortunately, the first thing I want to do is delete most or all of the existing Snippet definitions in most of the Global Categories. (As well as some of the Global Categories.)

Creating your own Category structure and hiding what's there is the best option in these cases, given what we're allowed to do.

JazzIsBlues: My choice has been to create my own Categories and Tag Domains and leave the existing ones alone. That way changes LWD makes won't affect my realms, but I can use them where I choose. Until we have the Content Market, it's hard to say whether or how much you'll be affected by other people's use of the Global Categories (effectively "how much of other people's stuff you feel like merging into your realm".) Much like software development, everything we're doing so far is prototyping and may have to be thrown out once sharing and the Market are available.

 

[Bobifle]

Unfortunately, the first thing I want to do is delete most or all of the existing Snippet definitions in most of the Global Categories. (As well as some of the Global Categories.)

Have you tried hidding the snippets you're not interested in and adding new ones to replace them ?

That would make importing from the market possible because the initial structure is still there, it's just hidden.

 

[Parody]

Have you tried hidding the snippets you're not interested in and adding new ones to replace them ?

No, I chose instead to hide the Global Categories and create my own. That's the only safe way to do it, as I don't want LWD's future changes to the Category structure to mess with what I'm doing.

I personally don't care about importing items from the Market, but if I do the Globals are still there for them to use.

Given that the systems I work with are dead and unable (or very unlikely) to be licensed for distribution, no content for them is going to be distributed on the Market anyway.

Addition: If you'd like more info about why I chose this route, this post from the thred "Plan/Order for Adding Other Genre/Systems?" might be insightful.

 

[Farling]

Much like software development, everything we're doing so far is prototyping and may have to be thrown out once sharing and the Market are available.

Which is why following Rob's advice might make it less likely that you will have to throw things out.

 

[Parody]

Which is why following Rob's advice might make it less likely that you will have to throw things out.

I think it's independent of any use of the Global Categories/Tags. Throwing things out is a result of seeing how other folks do things and whether a "community standard" for whatever it is comes to exist.

For example: those using sharable systems may very well want to throw out their version of the system to use the version accepted by the community or officially distributed by the publisher or LWD. It doesn't matter whether or not your version uses the Global Categories/Tags or whether or not the community/official version uses them; the decision is whether to convert to be more compatible with the shared version or not. These changes then ripple across everything you've created that references that system.

 

[Silveras]

I think it's independent of any use of the Global Categories/Tags. Throwing things out is a result of seeing how other folks do things and whether a "community standard" for whatever it is comes to exist.

For example: those using sharable systems may very well want to throw out their version of the system to use the version accepted by the community or officially distributed by the publisher or LWD. It doesn't matter whether or not your version uses the Global Categories/Tags or whether or not the community/official version uses them; the decision is whether to convert to be more compatible with the shared version or not. These changes then ripple across everything you've created that references that system.

Agreed. I have refrained from dong much with Mechanics articles so far because I expect such content to be available for purchase, for example. Once I see what that looks like, I may decide to do my own, but doing it the other way around seems more likely to be wasting my time.

Some time back, I expressed the opinion that publishers would pretty uniformly want to create custom categories and tags.. because they would want the RealmWorks version to mirror their print/PDF content visually as well as in terms of content.

At that time, Rob disagreed.

One thing I can envision publishers, especially those with Open systems, doing is to publish a realm with just their customized categories and tags for the community, free-lancers, and publishers to use in order to achieve consistent formatting. Such an approach would, however, leave the current global topics and tags to "wither on the vine". At the same time, it also helps to ensure that content from third-party publishers and the community integrate cleanly within a given system, and provides isolation so that topics and tags for System A do not appear in System B where they would be out of place.

 

[MNBlockHead]

Agreed. I have refrained from dong much with Mechanics articles so far because I expect such content to be available for purchase, for example. Once I see what that looks like, I may decide to do my own, but doing it the other way around seems more likely to be wasting my time.

I can't help myself and have been creating mechanics content. If I have the option of buying the rules content from the CM, I certainly would as I'm not trying to be complete by any means. I just create articles for frequently referenced rules and some random-generator tables (chase mechanics for example).

This is another reason I would love to have a feature where I could update links. If I later buy the rulebooks from the CM, I would rather throw out my incomplete articles and rebuild links using the purchased content.

 

[Parody]

Two clarifications:

First, it's not just Articles (mechanics). Prefab settings, shared templates for locations and characters, official versions of adventures, liking how someone writes up their cities, and plenty of other things might make you need to rethink your realm or parts of it. System was the easiest example, though.

Second, while I keep using the term "throw out", really it's the need to see what might need to be redone from scratch, what can be reused but updated, and what should be left as-is. (But sometimes you should get rid of it all. I learned that early on in my career. :(

 

[Silveras]

@Parody.. I understood. Actually, the prime example in my mind is that Paizo has a specific format for encounters in their products. I can specifically see them ignoring the Scene topic and creating an Encounter topic with sections to match their print/PDF products. And I can readily see this as being a requirement of any license.

 

[Farling]

What works as a layout in book/pdf format isn't always a good way to arrange things within RW. Paragraphs/snippets need to be reworked somewhat to allow information to be revealed to players easily. The literary flow of a book/PDF just isn't required for RW since the information needs to be more functionally organised.

 

[Silveras]

@Farling ... that applies to the paragraphs, and indeed the practice of mixing information that SHOULD NOT be revealed with information that SHOULD be revealed in a single paragraph is an example of what you are talking about. These bits *must* be re-arranged in RealmWorks vs. print/PDF.

However, if (for example), Paizo has specific organization to their encounters.. with headings like "Creature", "Treasure", "Hazard/Trap", "Story Award", "Development", and so on... this organization is somewhat part of their standards.. and I can readily see them wanting to adhere to that in publishing content on RealmWorks in order to match their print/PDF content as much as is feasible.

That latter is part is what I am getting at.