+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 168
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 02:36 AM #21
Scout (Lvl 6)
I just spent an hour formating my character page in the wiki. When I hit 'save' I got an error and lost everything. The current method is a pain in the ass. Please implement this proposal.Poop
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 02:37 AM #22
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 06:50 PM #23
My response would be that I don't understand why you think everyone HAS CB. I can't see allowing CB when the checker may not have it. What do they do then? How do they "quickly check the houserule flags" or "open the character sheet in CB" when they don't have it? If this proposal passes, it's pretty much telling everyone that they NEED CB to play here.Originally Posted by ryryguy
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 07:05 PM #24
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
Now, this proposal would require some number of the judges and checkers to have CB. Is it not the case that many or most judges and checkers have CB?
I also think that a judge/checker who does have CB and uses the summary or file for checking will be able to check a character sheet more quickly and efficiently. I haven't done any checking myself so I could definitely be mistaken in that belief. So, am I correct or not?
(Judges/checkers without CB could still check the sheets of those players who don't have CB or choose to use the old Math templates anyway. If nearly everyone starts using CB in their sheets... then it would seem that nearly everyone has it and can use it for checking, right?)
If all the above beliefs and assumptions are true, judges and checkers could work through the approval backlog more quickly, and players who have CB could create their sheets more quickly. Barrier to entry for new players with CB would be lowered. This would be a significant improvement to the community.
If any of the above beliefs and assumptions are not true, I'd love to hear why. If not, then frankly worries about who has CB and "requiring" CB are beside the point.
Finally, if the proposal is implemented and doesn't work out well, we could always go back to the current method. Nothing would be lost.
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 07:12 PM #25
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 07:27 PM #26
Most of the PC's awaiting approval have had their sheets looked at and we're waiting for feedback. ScorpiusRisk has helped out a lot to get us caught up.
Category:L4W:Requesting Approval - ENWiki
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 07:41 PM #27
Bottom line, do you think it's fine to exclude some GM's, Judges and checkers from seeing the math section? I don't. I think they should be able to just look it up insted of having to find someone with CB to do it for them. You'd translate a possible time saving for one character into a time delay for everyone in an adventure if the GM is waiting for someone else to look up information.
I'll take all of this back if indeed every GM, Judge and Checker (now and in the future) in fact does have CB.
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 07:48 PM #28
I'm not saying we should go ahead and get rid of the math section, but I do know that I've never looked at a player's math section in any of the games I've DM'd. That's what the judges/reviewers are for. I have looked at Player's summary sections at the top of the CS, but never the math.
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 07:55 PM #29
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
While I understand elec's position on a player wanting to be able to look at the numbers, the math section is for the reviewers and always has been since LEW and old LEB (in LEW/oLEB it wasn't even required, just requested).
I'll turn the argument a bit around: How many folks are we losing because the template formatting for the math section drives them away? We have some evidence that it does.
Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, 08:00 PM #30
I wish I knew more about coding because it seems to me that the best thing would be a middle ground where you didn't have to look at the code when you filled out the sheet, but instead had a chart like the one you see when viewing a completed sheet that you could fill in the numbers on. That chart is easier to read and understand what needs to go where.
It seems like it's looking at the coding itself, as a large block of garbled symbols and abbreviations that aren't always obvious to understand, that is really scaring people away. Otherwise, it isn't much more effort than writing up a character sheet by hand.
Thus if we could figure out how to make it work that we had a chart template instead of a code template, things might be easier for everyone. Obviously, there'd need to be code behind the chart to do the math, but I think you see what I'm saying here.